Traveller in 3D

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem?

I agree, and I personally wouldn't use a system where the economics break down because you have to take extra jumps in between destinations. That is the type of issue I am trying to avoid.

I think Thrash's model of how to deal with Jump Drives in 3D is more workable. (And it is true 3D.) It works better than my first two impulses. Now to look further into basic sector data, borders and the like. (3D space tends to complicate that as well.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
i'll refer you all to Malenfant's attempts to make 3D space workable in 2D here. It mainly concentrates on realistic portrayal of near Sol space.

It also has a handy travel distance calculator for working out distances between layers.

Thanks. Interesting. But I am actually trying to make Traveller workable in true 3D, not trying to convert 3D to a 2D representation.

Distance calculators is a function of the software. It doesn't need layers because it is stored in a 3D format. Well perhaps if you want to actually print flat maps. In my case though there is no reason to print the maps. The screen works fine, as does the output I can send to my players.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Size is another issue, when it comes to habitable, as is hydrosphere.

Not really. The atmosphere definitions in Book 3 are functional, not physical: atmosphere 4-9 worlds are habitable using at most filter masks, by definition. This doesn't always track with reality as we know it, of course, nor does it guarantee they will be pleasant places, but there it is.

As far as long term high populations, that would depend on what was there and the reason anyone would go there in the first place.

I did say "likely." The problem isn't anomolous high populations in inhospitable systems, it is when high populations occur precisely as often in inhospitable systems as in those with perfectly Earthlike environments. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, when it comes to Traveller, and most things, size DOES matter. After all you have to deal with Gravity as well as Atmosphere and Hydrosphere. Further there will be populations on inhospitable worlds, because of economic factors, (mining operations for example), or just because of location ( Ie. only stop along a major communication route). In the latter case there might be nothing more than a large highport or two and nothing on the planet at all.

 

[Laryssa]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem?

I agree, and I personally wouldn't use a system where the economics break down because you have to take extra jumps in between destinations. That is the type of issue I am trying to avoid.

I think Thrash's model of how to deal with Jump Drives in 3D is more workable. (And it is true 3D.) It works better than my first two impulses. Now to look further into basic sector data, borders and the like. (3D space tends to complicate that as well.) </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't the key factor about how long you space? OTU says you spend about a week in jump space, but what if in 3d Traveller you spend only a day in jump space and then you were there? You can work out the length in jump space so you end up spending a weeks travel time on average between two habitable worlds, with a lot of refueling stops at gas giants between. An interesting way to progress the jump drives would be instead of each drive jumping further, they just take less time to make the jump. So heres how it would go. With Jump-1 you spend 2 days in jump space to jump 2 parsecs, with jump-2 you spend 1 day in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With Jump-3 you spend 16 hours in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With jump-4 you take 12 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-5 will take 10 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-6 will take 8 hours to make a 2 parsec jump.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Laryssa:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem?

I agree, and I personally wouldn't use a system where the economics break down because you have to take extra jumps in between destinations. That is the type of issue I am trying to avoid.

I think Thrash's model of how to deal with Jump Drives in 3D is more workable. (And it is true 3D.) It works better than my first two impulses. Now to look further into basic sector data, borders and the like. (3D space tends to complicate that as well.) </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't the key factor about how long you space? OTU says you spend about a week in jump space, but what if in 3d Traveller you spend only a day in jump space and then you were there? You can work out the length in jump space so you end up spending a weeks travel time on average between two habitable worlds, with a lot of refueling stops at gas giants between. An interesting way to progress the jump drives would be instead of each drive jumping further, they just take less time to make the jump. So heres how it would go. With Jump-1 you spend 2 days in jump space to jump 2 parsecs, with jump-2 you spend 1 day in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With Jump-3 you spend 16 hours in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With jump-4 you take 12 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-5 will take 10 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-6 will take 8 hours to make a 2 parsec jump. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually the key factors are, how long you spend in Jump (And I like the one week in Jump.), how much fuel you have to go through, how you refuel, and you charge per jump (OTU) or per Parsec (MTU and many others.)

The other difficulty, in YTU is that some planets will be unreachable, and you are using the old, the shortest route between two points is an angle. (Which is why I call it 2.5D.) Besides I have great 3D software, which will calculate distance and display in 3D. Other mapping ideas aren't really the issue. The issue is if it is possible to run a 3D Universe within the framework of the OTU history.

 

[Laryssa]

Fuel consumption is about the same as in the 2d Traveller Universe, except the fuel is used per type of jump. Using more fuel will get you their faster and you'll spend less time in jump space. Some worlds will be unreachable if you have a limit of 2 parsecs per jump no matter how sort the travel time is, but keep in mind, in a 3d universe there will be more stars within that 2 parsec range than in 2d Traveller. In 2d Traveller the maximum jump range is 6 parsecs, but in 3d space, I think a 6 parsec range is too much. A starship can just about travel in any direction as there will be stars above and below as well as along the sides. I think a 2 parsec or perhaps 3 parsec range is perhaps the equivalent of a Jump 6 in terms on the number of stars than can be reached. It seems more sensible to me to make the Jump levels affect the amount of time it takes to complete a jump rather than how far the ship can jump. In most cases, the starship won't be able to travel directly from origin star to destination star without having to make intermediate refueling stops at various red dwarf systems and this is true whether it takes 2 days to make a jump or 8 hours. Red Dwarf Star systems then become strategic as higher jump-capable starships cannot skip over them.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Laryssa:
Fuel consumption is about the same as in the 2d Traveller Universe, except the fuel is used per type of jump. Using more fuel will get you their faster and you'll spend less time in jump space. Some worlds will be unreachable if you have a limit of 2 parsecs per jump no matter how sort the travel time is, but keep in mind, in a 3d universe there will be more stars within that 2 parsec range than in 2d Traveller. In 2d Traveller the maximum jump range is 6 parsecs, but in 3d space, I think a 6 parsec range is too much. A starship can just about travel in any direction as there will be stars above and below as well as along the sides. I think a 2 parsec or perhaps 3 parsec range is perhaps the equivalent of a Jump 6 in terms on the number of stars than can be reached. It seems more sensible to me to make the Jump levels affect the amount of time it takes to complete a jump rather than how far the ship can jump. In most cases, the starship won't be able to travel directly from origin star to destination star without having to make intermediate refueling stops at various red dwarf systems and this is true whether it takes 2 days to make a jump or 8 hours. Red Dwarf Star systems then become strategic as higher jump-capable starships cannot skip over them.

Fuel has always been per distance of Jump. (One of the reasons I have, and many others have, adopted the per parsec method of charging for passage.) Your method of determining star and system position means you can't go straight line, your stars are evenly scattered and a Jump 1 ship is useless.

If you use a true 3D program to do your Universe instead of your fudge, it will fix all sorts of issues. WIthout a total rewrite though it won't have a traveller feel. (Which is one thing that I am definitely interested in keeping.)

 

[aramis]

Actually, under Bk2, fuel was per maximum jump of the drive, ignoring the distance actually jumped (provided it didn't exceed the rating of the drive...).

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Time Taken = fixed range 168±10% without regard to distance covered
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit time, rather than distance.

YMMV, and YMMPDVW...

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. [...]

Off-and-on, I've wanted to introduce 3D elements to the Traveller maps. I already assume that the map is a flattened representation of wavy space (but big deal).

Something that struck me in this thread is that 3D is difficult, due to current technology. You need a table or a computer to look up distances, neither of which are friendly enough.

But you could introduce a few elements that add a 3D feel without wrecking the OTU and adding the pain of a 3D map.

For example, add a couple of systems more per subsector, and place them 'beyond' the map at random vertical offsets (1d6 parsecs?), representing targets that could not be accomodated by Vilanic starcharts. Use simple addition to calculate distances for everything except extreme cases. Since they're not "on the map", you might decide that the systems are off the beaten track a bit, too.

It's not difficult, but it's not 3D.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. [...]

Off-and-on, I've wanted to introduce 3D elements to the Traveller maps. I already assume that the map is a flattened representation of wavy space (but big deal).

Something that struck me in this thread is that 3D is difficult, due to current technology. You need a table or a computer to look up distances, neither of which are friendly enough.

</font>[/QUOTE]Actually that is the point I was making. With AstroSynthesis 2.0 it is pretty easy and friendly to generate a true 3D map, calculate distance, show possible jump routes, etc. The tools are now available to do a true 3D Universe. I mean we all obviously have a computer and some knowledge of how to use one.

It isn't Rocket Science.

(I studied Rocket science for a little while and I can categorically state this definitely isn't it.

) Some of us actually play Traveller using a Computer interface via the Internet, instead of a table face to face. (My campaign falls into that category.) So for us the NBOS software is slick and works well. I can export from Astro Synthesis to Klooge easily enough, Screen Monkey, Fantasy Grounds and most others also have the capability. (Grip is showing its age as HTML is not one of the share with the players options, unless I missed it in the docs.)

So with that hurdle overcome the question becomes, now that we can do the Universe in 3D, can we do it and not lose the Traveller feel, and rich history that only comes from developing the setting for almost 30 years. Or is it so tied to a 2D map that a reasonable conversion is impossible.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, under Bk2, fuel was per maximum jump of the drive, ignoring the distance actually jumped (provided it didn't exceed the rating of the drive...).

Ooops. I forgot. You are of course absolutely correct. It has been so long since I have used LBB2 without LBB5, (used it for about a week before I bought LBB5 back in 1980 (?).)

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Time Taken = fixed range 168±10% without regard to distance covered
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit time, rather than distance.

YMMV, and YMMPDVW...

Item 5 makes Jump-2+ Ships, at any size unprofitable, further travelling someplace slower is more expensive than getting there faster, hence one of the most common house rules, is to charge per parsec. But that list is the essense of Traveller space travel. Though I should like to add.

6)A trip is defined by a single jump from point of origin to point of destination, regardless of distance.

7)The fastest method of interstellar communication is Starship, there is no FTL radio, video, etc.

Bearing this in mind. The issues that you run into when you create a 3D Universe with the same number of stars as a 2D universe are as follows.

Distance from center to edge or edge to edge is is much shorter. Which means, unless you change how Jump Drives work that Communication is much faster allowing more centralized control. Warships can be kept at more central locations because communication from point to point is faster as is reaction time for the Navy. Further Jump 1 Drives are going to have less usefullness as they will be restricted to single clusters. The likelihood of a long main is slim to none. So Jump 1 ships don't go far enough Jump 4-6 ships go too far.

Going edge to edge with the same distance and a reasonable depth will increase the number of systems exponentially, virtually destroying any ability or even pretense of centralized control. Too many stars, too many Nobles, etc. Dukes become a dime a dozen. (Forget about lesser nobility.)

So a solution like Thrash's that adjusts Jump Drive geometrically should provide what is needed to use the same number of stars in 3D space. (Though I will have to playtest the results once I generate a Sector as it appears that this is pretty much virgin territory.) Then we can keep 16 Subsectors per sector and 4 sectors per domain. 7 Domains make up the Imperium. (What it will look like is next on the list.)

Should you go a Sector is 4x2x2 Subsectors? Or perhaps 3x3x2 (And add 2 subsectors per sector?) You can't stack spherical Sectors next to each other but perhaps Spherical domains? Then each Sector would be .25 of the Sphere. (Or 2 per hemisphere.)Then each subsector could be 22.5 degrees by 45 degrees, by whatever your radius of the Domain is.).

Then I started to remember Spherical Geometry, as one of my co-workers is taking an advanced Calc class. If you shape the Imperium as a rough Sphere. With one domain in the center, (roughly half the diameter of the sphere, then you can spread the other domains around the center. Say 90 degrees by 90 degrees, yielding a total of 9 Domains. Sectors at the Core would be similar to those described above for the Spherical Domain. Exterior Domains could have sectors of 45 degrees by 45 degrees (Yeilding 4 per domain.) Subsectors, stack them 2 deep, and then go 22.5 degrees, by 22.5 degrees for the close ones, and 11.25 degrees by 11.25 degrees for the far ones. (Giving you 16 subsectors per sector.)

Subsectors or Sectors on the edges might not belong to the Imperium. Pull a domain out for the Part of the Solomani Sphere that the Imperium didn't keep, and you are down to 8 Domains in the Imperium.

How does that sound? Workable?

Polar Coordinates still give me a headache though. Someone please check my math on this. If the Imperium was about 11,000 systems, with an average system spread of 2.5 parsecs and with a diameter of about 200 parsecs, leaving room around the edges for areas not controlled by the Imperium, that should mean that the subsectors are roughly equal size as are the sectors and domains.

Does that even sound right?

Of course other empires would use a different mapping technique, centered on something other than Capital/Core which would intersect with the Imperium's Sphere but running a Sphere of roughly 250 parsecs should give me a piece of each of the other empires without complicating my map too much.

It almost sounds too simple.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Math corrections?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Nope, I checked my math and the size is wrong.
That size puts me over 4 million systems. The Imperium has about 11,000 to 12,000 systems.

 

[aramis]

BTL: J2 and J3 ships I have found make FAR MORE than J1, IF ONE IS ON A SPECULATION DIRECTED COURSE... let the available goods take you where you need to go, and profits soon will follow.

But that also is reliant upon a non-route-bound ship, too.

ALso, with good passenger loadouts and Bk5 designs, one can get profitable J2 designs under the per-time fees listed. I have never been able to figure a reason for non-speculators to need J3... but for speculators, it puts a +3 or better resale DM worlds in reach almost every jump in the central sectors.

As for 3d space, the economics of operation don't change, merely the odds for finding a good speculation run IF one is willing to follow it.

 

[robject]

BTL: Yes, Astrosynth is superb.

In our games, we now regularly have at least one laptop attending, and often have one guy phoning in from Louisiana. So technology has enabled us.

But I feel that either computers haven't come quite far enough, or I'm stuck in the 70s and 80s, because I still want something that's more like paper. Although we're close -- for example, hooking my computer up to our TV lets everyone see the same thing. That would work.

The only other thing is probably that I and my group are old fogeys, and to us new whiz-bang tools are seen as TOYS to play with and not tools to use, at least for now. So a groovy 3D sector viewer would distract us from actually playing a game.

So I'm holding off on declaring us 3D universe-ready.

 

[Laryssa]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, under Bk2, fuel was per maximum jump of the drive, ignoring the distance actually jumped (provided it didn't exceed the rating of the drive...).

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Time Taken = fixed range 168±10% without regard to distance covered
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit time, rather than distance.

YMMV, and YMMPDVW...

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Distance Traveled = up to 2 parsecs without regard to time taken.
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit distance, rather than time.

J1 = 2 parsecs in 2 days 10% volume in fuel
J2 = 2 parsecs in 1 day 20% volume in fuel
J3 = 2 parsecs in 16 hours 30% volume in fuel
J4 = 2 parsecs in 12 hours 40% volume in fuel
J5 = 2 parsecs in 10 hours 50% volume in fuel
J6 = 2 parsecs in 8 hours 60% volume in fuel

A jump 1 isn't exactly useless, you can still jump 2 parsecs with it.

If something is further away than two parsecs, you have two options, you can travel the remaining distance at sublight speed, or you can find a jump point in between, jump to that and from that jump again, taking twice as long.

 

[aramis]

Reducing those jump times does drastic damage to the expectations of communications and trade. It' puts J2 in the "Wait for confirmation" reach, being that at two days to round trip, that's well under the response times modern business will tolerate.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL: J2 and J3 ships I have found make FAR MORE than J1, IF ONE IS ON A SPECULATION DIRECTED COURSE... let the available goods take you where you need to go, and profits soon will follow.

But that also is reliant upon a non-route-bound ship, too.

ALso, with good passenger loadouts and Bk5 designs, one can get profitable J2 designs under the per-time fees listed. I have never been able to figure a reason for non-speculators to need J3... but for speculators, it puts a +3 or better resale DM worlds in reach almost every jump in the central sectors.

As for 3d space, the economics of operation don't change, merely the odds for finding a good speculation run IF one is willing to follow it.

We have had the conversation on Spec Trade.

And yes I can agree that a lucky roll or two will throw your profits through the roof. As far as that being bread and butter for all the freighters out there...

But lets leave that discussion aside. It doesn't help the 3D Universe construction.

I agree with you that those are the basics and part of what I am trying to preserve. The History is the other part I am trying to preserve. The Issues I am running into is size of the Third Imperium. At the approximate system per 2.5 parsecs average which appears to be standard and the size of approximately 11,000 to 12,000 systems in the Imperium. Long Distance communication goes way down. As does Naval reaction times.

1 system per 2.5 cubic parsecs (approximate average) means that 12,000 systems will take up, 30,000 cubic parsecs. 30,000 cubic parsecs is a Sphere with a radius of 21.21parsecs. Ooops. Too small. Or is my math still fragged.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Laryssa:


A jump 1 isn't exactly useless, you can still jump 2 parsecs with it.

If something is further away than two parsecs, you have two options, you can travel the remaining distance at sublight speed, or you can find a jump point in between, jump to that and from that jump again, taking twice as long.

Well that totally frags up the standards of Traveller economics, Warship design, etc. But lets look at one of your suggestions, continue at sublight. OK. Sure.

If your destination is 3 parsecs away and you have a 6G maneuver drive. After Jumping 2 parsecs, you still have a parsec to go. 3.26 light years is one parsec. It is also 3.0842x10^16 meters. (Approximately) Rounding 1G to 10 meters/sec^2 Using 6G constant accelleration and turning around at the halfway point for 6G constant decelleration. Assuming unlimited endurance. It would take 2x(D/A)^-2 in seconds to get there. Or 45,344,759.34 seconds to get there. (Or just under a year and a half.) However, during that flight you will exceed the speed limit of 3x10^8 meters/second. (It will take your radio message that you jumped short 3.26 years to get there.)

 

[aramis]

BTL:
3 D makes speculation EVEN better, because twice the distance isn't 4 times the systems , but 8.... It's also not about lucky rolls, BTL. the system is set so that tramp speculation is a key element to finance.

Laryssa:
When you muck with the basic assumptions of jump, you fundamentally alter the nature of the setting. Your "lots of short jumps" isn't something I'd want, especially given the slim but ever present chances of misjump. Even given the generous nature of how mild most jump errors are, in MT, one in 36 jumps will have an error of some kind, if not more; most will be harmless, if you don't mind not being the same age as the universe.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

BTW I have Astrosynthesis 2.0 and have a LBB Book3 ASTROSCRIPT working (yes, it plots planets without stars!). I will post it when possible.

To preserve long communications and travel times in a smaller sphere:

Has anyone considered that Red Dwarfs, other stars and other major stellar objects (insert phenomena here) may actually interfere with travel paths? The change would involve changing the 100 diameter limit when objects are beyond a certain mass (say large brown dwarfs or red dwarf sized) are changed to some other standard. From a realspace prospective, J-Drives only work in a straight line of travel, stars you do not want go to might act as roadblocks and detours to the ones you do want to get to. Same long travel time in a smaller 3D space.


"Going thru hyperspace ain't like cropdusting, boy..."