XBoat deckplans.

[Brian Smaller]

Knocked this out between jobs the last couple of days. Quite a bit of fun actually. Hope you enjoy this CT ship. Once again I have tried to stay true to the original plans as far as I could.
Full plans at:
http://woolshedwargamer.com/2015/07/08/scout-service-express-boat-classic-traveller/

Cheers
Brian

 

[Patron Zero]

Well done Brian, well done !

 

[Matt123]

Yep, that Kashikvili is a bit of slob...

 

[wbyrd]

Very nicely done, good detail and I don't have to squint to see it.

 

[samuelvss]

This is great! One issue, which is unimportant with this design, because of context. The only difference between the Overhead, and Over/Under hatches at Irises is the black outer rim. On a black background this is difficult to see. Like I said, on this design context makes it obvious, particularly with the profile/cutaways; visually, though I couldn't tell. If something in the center of the designs was black and red rather than just red, I think this would solve this little issue. As I've said before, one thing I like about your deck plans is they are both visually rich and so readable as deck plans, and this is the only small area where I noticed a difficulty.

Thanks again for your great work. Did you see my PM?

 

[Brian Smaller]

Yes - points noted. And Yes - replied to your PM - sounds like a neat idea. Will have a look.

 

[Patron Zero]

Unintentional hijack if seen as such, apologies in advance.

I've often wondered why the bridge of the X-boat was not inverted-perpendicular to the other decks, such facing 'up' and forward to the ship's main axis.

That arrangement would allow for a better forward view from the bridge in general and might 'conserve' some available space for other usage.

And again, really nice work Brian !

 

[aramis]

Unintentional hijack if seen as such, apologies in advance.

I've often wondered why the bridge of the X-boat was not inverted-perpendicular to the other decks, such facing 'up' and forward to the ship's main axis.

That arrangement would allow for a better forward view from the bridge in general and might 'conserve' some available space for other usage.

And again, really nice work Brian !

No point - the X-boat cannot maneuver. Primary reason for outside views is deciding whether or not to open the door...

 

[Brian Smaller]

Unintentional hijack if seen as such, apologies in advance.

I've often wondered why the bridge of the X-boat was not inverted-perpendicular to the other decks, such facing 'up' and forward to the ship's main axis.

That arrangement would allow for a better forward view from the bridge in general and might 'conserve' some available space for other usage.

And again, really nice work Brian !

When I was doing the deck plan I thought the same thing. I was toying with a window at the front end of the ship and a chair that swiveled up 90 degrees so your back was 'down'. Then I thought - too hard and that is not what the plans show. The joys of artificial gravity

 

[Tekrat04]

I've always wondered why have two airlock side by side with two different type of hatch. It's makes no sense.

 

[aramis]

I've always wondered why have two airlock side by side with two different type of hatch. It's makes no sense.

Given one's a manual and the other an iris, I can see it. The iris is normal use. The Manual is in case the batteries ran out.

 

[Patron Zero]

Two brief bits if I may.

-I see there being a remote camera providing a view at the hatches of whom-what might be alongside the ship, such independently powered for reasons of safety and reliability should main-power fail.

Hence, the 'forward-looking' view a consideration to X-boat pilots when such are being ferried to-recovered from their jump-points.

-That side-by-side airlock arrangement has always baffled me too, I could see the point or purpose of a rescue compartment having both iris and manual hatches in say a 4.5x4.5M space.

Mind even having said airlocks set on different decks in an above-below 'stacked' configuration makes more sense for the purposes of rescue or simple boarding. The iris hatch on the crew deck and the manual hatch accessing the engineering deck might be a better location for such.

 

[Brian Smaller]

All very true - but that wouldn't make it X-Boat 51216 any more They don't make them like that any more.

 

[Terquem]

I design systems for a type 2 nuclear facility - and even though I love me some Traveller, I always get myself wrapped around the axel when it comes to things like this. Because, basically, if space is a premium, and systems need to be kept simple and functional. There would be no iris hatches. manual ones would be sufficient on a vessel such as this one. Besides that, Iris hatches need "space" for the parts to be located that make it work, and the walls here would be crowded with unnecessary devices.

 

[Brian Smaller]

I think that virtually no star ship deck plans anywhere for RPG games are that realistic. They are plot devices more than anything else. They have their genesis in boat and house plans I think.

 

[kilemall]

The Star Citizen guys are actually designing their ships to be 'working' models, and since they have to be literal in order for players to walk around and 'work' in them, they have had to deal with a lot of literal space/ergonomics issues we've always had 'imagineering' to work around.

On the other hand, one often looks over SC 'deck plans' and realize they were designed by pretty art majors, not engineers.

 

[Terquem]

Don't get me wrong, sheesh, I should have said this to start. It's a beautiful image. I recently picked up the CC3+ software, Dungeon and City modules as well, and I am looking real hard at the star ship deck plan bundle for that as well, so I can learn to make deck plans almost as nice as this one.

Good work!

 

[Tekrat04]

Given one's a manual and the other an iris, I can see it. The iris is normal use. The Manual is in case the batteries ran out.

No offence but a grasping at straw justification to account for a bad design decision in the first place.

I design systems for a type 2 nuclear facility - and even though I love me some Traveller, I always get myself wrapped around the axel when it comes to things like this. Because, basically, if space is a premium, and systems need to be kept simple and functional. There would be no iris hatches. manual ones would be sufficient on a vessel such as this one. Besides that, Iris hatches need "space" for the parts to be located that make it work, and the walls here would be crowded with unnecessary devices.

I also get get bent out of shape when I read deck plans. I'm a theatre tech, part of my job is to read technical drawings (stage and lighting plots) to set them up. I read deck plans in the same way I read a stage layout, it's all about the information. Your comment about what should of been done about the airlock makes sense.

On the other hand, one often looks over SC 'deck plans' and realize they were designed by pretty art majors, not engineers.

That can be said about every starships deck plans ever published in any RPGs.

What's needed is to educate the pretty arts majors and the average RPG player about reality. Make them think about the implications of what information is on the drawing, it's not just about the pretty picture.

 

[Brian Smaller]

I also get get bent out of shape when I read deck plans.

Sorry mate but I must be turning you into a pretzel . I know where you are coming from though but as I said, my 'role-playing aids that are misrepresented as deckplans' are just that - a gaming aid for myself and anyone else interested.I don't have to worry about wiring, where the doors recess into (or how), waste reticulation or a million other things.

it's not just about the pretty picture.

For me it is all about the pretty picture. I know they are inaccurate, impossible and plain silly - but I still like cranking them out.

 

[Matt123]

Given one's a manual and the other an iris, I can see it. The iris is normal use. The Manual is in case the batteries ran out.

No offence but a grasping at straw justification to account for a bad design decision in the first place.

You are making an assumption that it is a bad design decision and that there is not a good use case for it. Aramis's suggestion could touch on the frequency of mis-jumps, intervention by local governments driving away tenders, pilot error in jump calculations, etc.

Given the bulkiness of the 80's communication equipment Traveller is predicated on it may make maintenance easier allowing the easy replacement of equipment that would be defeated by an automated airlock.

It will also allow easier access if the defenceless stationary x-boat is taken over by pirates. It may take welding equipment to 'lock' that door from the inside.

Regards defences, given the x-boat has none and attempts by the pilot to repel boarders is near futile, it may also deter foolish actions by the pilot removing the inclination to attempt to defend encrypted communications. This could be a rare example of Health and Safety in the Traveller universe.

The fact that we do not 'know' the reason, does not in itself mean it is a 'bad' design choice.