🚀 NEW: Professional Traveller Ship Builder Tool - Free & Ready to Use!

[AnotherDilbert]

The Safari/Brave error has been fixed as far as I can tell (I have accessed the ship builder with both of those browsers on my Mac).
Please let me know it it persists on your end.

Confirmed fixed.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Hmmm,
I'm having a lot of trouble pinning down where this runaway fuel addition is happening. I'll keep search, but if you could let me know at what point it suddenly appears at it would be really helpful.

I'll see if I can recreate it, but i discovered it in 0.1.3 and you have changed the fuel allocation in 0.1.4, so...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

R-Drives as written are an alternative to M-Drives that use solid fuel, the calculations in the combat thrust section comes straight from Page 18 but it looks like they aren't calculating properly!

High Burn Thrusters are Reaction drives, it's just a question of nomenclature.

High Guard, p45:
HIGH-BURN THRUSTER
A high-burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship. This is done by adding a reaction drive whose Thrust is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.

Starship Operator's Manual, p94:
When reaction drives are present on a starship, it is most often due to one of three reasons, the first two of which are more common among ships designed for combat. First, reaction and manoeuvre drives have a maximum performance generally limited by TL but these are separate limits. Having both systems allows a ship to accelerate at the sum of the drives’ performances, achieving much greater acceleration than is possible with either drive alone.

It should be 16 X 10 X 10 - It looks like I have accidentally added together all of the fuel tanks and made them available as thruster fuel, maybe? (that math doesnt explain it properly either, but it's something like that anyway - I'll sort it out).

I think you took max(thrust) × max(fuel duration) = thrust points, so reaction drive thrust × power plant duration...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Recreating the medium fighter from post #72, now with version 0.1.5:

Power plant fuel should be 1 Dt for 4 weeks, not 0 Dt.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't agree with this interpretation.

"Making a bridge detachable adds +50% to its cost"

The rules implication of this for me is that you can make any bridge type detachable as an additional option - I can have a "Smaller Bridge" that is also Detachable, I can have a "Command Bridge" that is also detachable.

I decide what bridge type I want, add 50% cost and 20% weight and now it is also detachable.

Yes, perhaps, but that clashes with the Detachable Bridge table...


A Detachable Bridge for a 500 Dt ship should probably be 30 Dt (+20%?), and cost 500 Dt / 100 Dt × MCr0.5 × 150% = MCr 3.75, 50% more than a regular bridge.

A Small Detachable Bridge would be the next smaller size on the Detachable Bridge table, 15 Dt (+20%?) and cost 500 Dt / 100 Dt × MCr0.25 × 150% = MCr 1.875, 50% more than a regular small bridge.

I believe... Check with @MongooseMatt?


The earlier version of High Guard, from 2016, was clearer:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There is no smaller bridge than 3 Dt, a small bridge on a 35 Dt small craft is still 3 Dt, the same size as the regular bridge, even if cheaper:

Bridge, 3 Dt?


Small Bridge 1 Dt?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When I installed weapons on the medium fighter, hence Power, hence larger power plant, hence recalculated fuel:




Finalise says:


Summary:



If I go back to the Power or Fuel tab, then fuel is recalculated correctly.


Remove the weapons, and it's back...


Despite the decreased power plant, it's the same amount of fuel allocated:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Let's build a Patrol Corvette (HG, p187):

Allocate hull and drives, fuel is OK:


Install some weapons, fuel is OK:


Visit the Power and Fuel tab without changing any values:

Fuel is now reserved for three jumps à 3 Pc each. Probably not intended?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Add a reaction drive:





An extra 20000 Dt fuel is allocated...


Go to the Fuel tab and it's gone (Power tab changed nothing):


Add a turret, and it's back:


So, the fuel bug seems to be connected to automatic fuel calculation while having a reaction drive?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Torpedoes are three per Dt, 10 torpedoes should be 3.33 Dt.
Missiles are not 1 Dt each, but 1 Dt for 12, 10 missiles should be 0.83 Dt:
Sand canisters are 20 per Dt, so correct.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Enhancement request:
Recalculate on 'Enter' or 'Return' in all input fields.

Sorry, I'm spreadsheet damaged, recalculate on 'Tab' or mouse click feels unnatural...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Enhancement Request:
Accept either '.' or ',' as decimal point in all input fields.

It's a major boon for users with non-english keyboards...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Thrust points are calculated using hours of fuel as weeks of endurance:

1 h reaction fuel => 1 week = 168 h endurance:



2 h reaction fuel => 2 weeks = 336 h endurance:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Version 0.1.5:
Let's build a Kinunir (HG,p215):



A standard bridge is 40 Dton and MCr 6.
Holographic Controls are an additinal 25% = MCr 6 × 25% = MCr 1.5 (and no extra power).

The detachable bridge should calculate cost based on hull size, not bridge size, so (1200/100, round up) × MCr 0.5 × 150% = MCr 9.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Point Defence Batteries does take up space, in this case it should be 20 Dt:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Screens also takes up space:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If we change from commercial to military crew, the number of crew and allocated staterooms change, but total consumed tonnage does not change:

Commercial Crew: 24 in 24 staterooms, total tonnage 1079 Dton:




Military Crew: 29 in 24 staterooms (of 29 needed), total tonnage 1079 Dton.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Crew calculations (docking spaces allocated, but no craft allocated):

Engineers: 8, should be 7 = (50 + 130 + 44) / 35, round up.
Maintenance: 3, should be 2 = 1200 / 500, round down.
Gunners: 8, should be 20 = 2 × (#turrets + #barbettes + #screens)
Administrator: 2, should be 1 = 1200 / 1000, round down.
Officer: 0, should be crew/10, round down.

Rounding is not generally specified in the rules, but implicit from the example ships in HG.

In general the crew specified in LBB2 50 years ago are rounded up, the new crew categories are rounded down, I believe... Small ship copied from Classic Traveller often use the same crew as was specified in CT. It would be nice if the software recreated that...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Recommended Common Areas should presumably be calculated on allocated accommodations, not on crew.



Here 60 Dt Common Areas are allocated for 25 staterooms and 35 barracks. Common Areas are calculated before barracks are considered.


By default I would allocate 25% of actually allocated accommodations, so (25×4 + 35) × 25% = 33.75 Dt.

The Kinunir allocates 20 staterooms, 35 barracks, and 29 Dt [≈(80+35)×25%] common areas:




Note that barracks are only allowed for troops and basic passengers, not crew. Should be checked?


By Traveller convention, troops are not crew, but more permanent passengers, so should be included in Medic calculations, but not Officer requirement, see e.g. HG,p242.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Point Defence Batteries does take up space, in this case it should be 20 Dt:
View attachment 6338

Why does it say "weight" and not "volume"?