• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Yet Another Cutter

Andrew Boulton

The Adminator
Thought I'd try a different shape...

octocut-01.jpg
 
Very nice Andrew,

reminds me of the way they did the cutters in "The Golden Starships" line.

I have all ways liked your work.
 
I have a question, nice model by hte way, maybe it is more of an observation. All the cutters and ship's boats are shown as being cylinders but, the deck plans don't show it that way. I can see people scratching their heads. Let me explain. The deck plans show a cutter as being 3 - 4 squares wide (4.5 meters - 6 meters) and the the deck hight of any starship/ spaceship is only 2 squares (3 meters). That would give you an oval shape. So why are they always shown as a round cylinder?
 
I have a question, nice model by hte way, maybe it is more of an observation. All the cutters and ship's boats are shown as being cylinders but, the deck plans don't show it that way. I can see people scratching their heads. Let me explain. The deck plans show a cutter as being 3 - 4 squares wide (4.5 meters - 6 meters) and the the deck hight of any starship/ spaceship is only 2 squares (3 meters). That would give you an oval shape. So why are they always shown as a round cylinder?
Could it be the rest of the space is taken up by fuel? (A question not a statement ;) )

Daniel
 
The deck plans show a cutter as being 3 - 4 squares wide (4.5 meters - 6 meters) and the the deck height of any starship/ spaceship is only 2 squares (3 meters). That would give you an oval shape. So why are they always shown as a round cylinder?

The deck plan is an approximation of the cylinder. The illustrations have always depicted the Cutter as a cylinder.

Using the 6m diameter as an example, one could then assume that the 6 m vertical height would allow two levels with each at 3 m tall. However, a plate through the middle would yield a lower level with a 6m wide ceiling and a floor that is less than 1 m wide, and an upper level with a 6m wide floor and a narrow aisle at full height and low ceilings on either side. Neither space is particularly useful.

A ceiling placed 1.5 meters above and a floor placed 1.5 meters below the center of the cylinder would yield a full 3m tall space across most of the width of the hull. The low spaces above and below the ceiling/floor can be used for fuel, equipment and cargo.
 
That is not a good enough answer, "They have always been shown that way." It is spaciously wrong. I'm not knocking your image/ model. I think it is great and might actually copy it with my own little twists. My comment/ question is directed to the tradional cutter. As I have found out, making a slight error brings a lot of heat down on you here but, to say that it is that way because it has always been that way is not right. I guess the small craft are kinda like the tartus from Dr Who, bigger on the inside then it actually is.
 
The deck plan is an approximation of the cylinder. The illustrations have always depicted the Cutter as a cylinder.

Using the 6m diameter as an example, one could then assume that the 6 m vertical height would allow two levels with each at 3 m tall. However, a plate through the middle would yield a lower level with a 6m wide ceiling and a floor that is less than 1 m wide, and an upper level with a 6m wide floor and a narrow aisle at full height and low ceilings on either side. Neither space is particularly useful.

A ceiling placed 1.5 meters above and a floor placed 1.5 meters below the center of the cylinder would yield a full 3m tall space across most of the width of the hull. The low spaces above and below the ceiling/floor can be used for fuel, equipment and cargo.

That's exactly the way and reasoning I use as well :)
 
What 6m diameter example? The deckplans show a four square by two square ratio (2:1)giving us an oval. One level is show not two. I just put together a quick model using the dimensions listed (6m X 3m X whatever m). If the floor sits above the curve at 0.33 meters that gives you a 4m platform to build on. If you give a ceiling height of 2.2m - 2.3m (~7 feet) above the floor, it leaves you with ~.5m of excess space above the ceiling plates. If you don't mind the curved ceiling you can push that up even further. As for the space for fuel, that is accounted for in the plans so space is not needed behind walls, in floors, in the ceiling, etc.

If we are to follow the shape of the ship as shown and sticking with the 3 meter high deck, than your ship would be 3m in diameter (2 squares by 2 squares by how ever long it would be need to make the 50 ton cutter). You would not have a lot of room for anything stored in mid to large sized crates. You might have room for a row of seats. Now if you take the 3m diameter and make it a radius, then you are throwing out the 3 meter high established deck hieght. If this is done you are doubling the size of the cutter.
 
Ask yourself this, if the Cutter in the official CT deckplans (Supplement 7) are only 3m (one deck) and squared then why is it only about 37tons (as shown)?

If you calculate the volume as a sphere though (Pi)(r)(r)(l) you get 31tons for the module (pretty darn close) and another 31tons for the rest of the hull (but there are the necked bit at the rear and the pinch of the nose at the front to subtract a little from that (so again pretty darn close imo)

The space for fuel in the above and below decks comes from the typical (example) module with an additional nine tons of fuel (I don't know why and disagree with some of the numbers though*)

* like the listed 15tons of cargo in the 12tons shown (some may be in the overhead or below) and needing 8tons for 12 seats (at half ton per should be 6 tons, but there is that 2 tons of open walkway)

Trust us, the cylinder works :)

The deckplan is an approximation of the central deck in a 6m cylinder. That's always been the artwork even if it's not specified in all the descriptions :)
 
That said alternatives are good and bound to exist. A modular cutter that is one deck high and squared would make a lot of sense in an economic usage of space with minimal waste sense.
 
That said alternatives are good and bound to exist. A modular cutter that is one deck high and squared would make a lot of sense in an economic usage of space with minimal waste sense.

There should be many, many variants for cutters, including something like

Eagle_Space1999__jestr.jpg



chopped down to MC size.
 
Ask yourself this, if the Cutter in the official CT deckplans (Supplement 7) are only 3m (one deck) and squared then why is it only about 37tons (as shown)?

If you calculate the volume as a sphere though (Pi)(r)(r)(l) you get 31tons for the module (pretty darn close) and another 31tons for the rest of the hull (but there are the necked bit at the rear and the pinch of the nose at the front to subtract a little from that (so again pretty darn close imo)

The space for fuel in the above and below decks comes from the typical (example) module with an additional nine tons of fuel (I don't know why and disagree with some of the numbers though*)

* like the listed 15tons of cargo in the 12tons shown (some may be in the overhead or below) and needing 8tons for 12 seats (at half ton per should be 6 tons, but there is that 2 tons of open walkway)

Trust us, the cylinder works :)

The deckplan is an approximation of the central deck in a 6m cylinder. That's always been the artwork even if it's not specified in all the descriptions :)

I can't tell you why it doesn't added up. Nothing in that book is correct.
Sorry, I don't.
I think this is a ploy by you guys to get me to do a cross sectional of the cutter. Take a look at the image "running off"
 
I can't tell you why it doesn't added up. Nothing in that book is correct.

True enough, though the cutter is one of the closer (close enough) ones.
Sorry, I don't.
I think this is a ploy by you guys to get me to do a cross sectional of the cutter. Take a look at the image "running off"

That's too bad but I can deal with "show me" challenges, at least this time. Check my cutter thread for updates, tonight with some luck, later this week if not. It's here:

Dart class 50ton Modular Cutter

No need for you to do a cross sectional, mine is done* in full 3D.

* ...ish, good enough for now and this, not nearly as good as Andrew's, and he can make his fly and land and shoot and..., but he's a big showoff :D ;)

I don't get the:
image "running off"
bit. Did the post get chopped?

EDIT - Ah, I see it now, an entry in the gallery, I'll have a look shortly (or longer ;) )
 
Last edited:
Broadsword captain to cutter pilot: "Quit foolin' around and park that new cutter in the bay, Boulton!"

Cutter pilot: Sure thing, boss!" ...skrrreeEEENCH!!!

:p
 
Cutters are definitely cylindrical. All the text and pictures, plus the Broadsword deck plans, agree. The Supp7 version only has 1 deck, but others have 2.

octocut-cut.jpg
 
Look at all that waste space taken up by the "cool look". Can you make it more Hex-like ? Or is that too much of an optical illusion ?

Unless your cylinder fits nicely inside that cutaway you've given us.


>
 
Back
Top