Auto Repair Software where?

[Sigtrygg]

That is deckplan wiggle room, not component wiggle room.

 

[Terry Mixon]

That is deckplan wiggle room, not component wiggle room.

I asked about accounting for the tonnage of the free airlock, and that was the answer.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I asked about accounting for the tonnage of the free airlock, and that was the answer.

If airlocks can be tonnage free, so can those parts of a bridge that are not actually on the bridge. Making 1 airlock per 100 tons tonnage free is a mistake in My opinion, exactly because of issues like this.

 

[Condottiere]

The wiggle room is based on ship components excess listed tonnage, as a whole.

Not a lot, when design is very focussed on engineering, bridge, fuel tanks, one stateroom, and cargo hold.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Wiggle room exists for artists to be able to make their deckplans/art. It should have never been used for components.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If airlocks can be tonnage free, so can those parts of a bridge that are not actually on the bridge.

One is a rule in the book, the other is not...
Of course you can play that way, it's just a house rule.

Making 1 airlock per 100 tons tonnage free is a mistake in My opinion, exactly because of issues like this.

It's a strange choice, agreed. But it's simple...

 

[MasterGwydion]

One is a rule in the book, the other is not...
Of course you can play that way, it's just a house rule.

Does it list a price per ton of bridge or a price per ton of ship? Does the book say that if you can crew the whole ship with virtual crew then you don't need a bridge? That means that you still need those things from the bridge eventhough a bridge is no longer required. So, you explain to Me how that is a houserule and not a simple interpretation of the rules as written.

It's a strange choice, agreed. But it's simple...

Simpler than just not having that rule at all?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Does it list a price per ton of bridge or a price per ton of ship?

A bridge has a size and a cost. You want to use one and discard the other, that is a house rule.

Why would that be a problem? It's just a house rule, we all use them, I certainly do...

Simpler than just not having that rule at all?

Frankly, yes, because some designers would forget about airlocks, which would be problematic...

But it's not exactly necessary, of course.

 

[MasterGwydion]

A bridge has a size and a cost. You want to use one and discard the other, that is a house rule.

Why would that be a problem? It's just a house rule, we all use them, I certainly do...

So, tell me then where do those things go when the bridge is removed? It is not a houserule. It is the way the book is written. You say the bridge has things that are required in it. Well? Where do those things go when you have a fully autonomous ship with no bridge?

Frankly, yes, because some designers would forget about airlocks, which would be problematic...

But it's not exactly necessary, of course.

So, we have this rule to help shipwrights that are too stupid to do their job properly? That is already a proven fact since Mongoose writers can't obey their own rules about shipbuilding.

 

[Condottiere]

It comes down to what you believe a starship needs to be controlled from a single area.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, tell me then where do those things go when the bridge is removed? It is not a houserule. It is the way the book is written. You say the bridge has things that are required in it. Well? Where do those things go when you have a fully autonomous ship with no bridge?

I have no idea, ask paltrysum?

The rules say we have to have a bridge, we have only paltrysum's word that we don't sometimes...

So, we have this rule to help shipwrights that are too stupid to do their job properly?

I don't know, I can only guess. I have a vague idea that the rule is older than MgT.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Frankly, yes, because some designers would forget about airlocks, which would be problematic...

But it's not exactly necessary, of course.

But there is the mandatory 1 airlock per 500 tons rule that covers that. It wouldn't be free, but it is there.

 

[Condottiere]

That seems very much an Imperium regulation, for spacecraft.

And, if you want to elaborate on it, would be only for a hundred tonne spacecraft and above.

For smallcraft, it would depend if they are certified to carry passengers.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But there is the mandatory 1 airlock per 500 tons rule that covers that. It wouldn't be free, but it is there.

Ideally there shouldn't be a hard rule, but some sort of guideline.

20 000 tiny airlocks on a 10 000 000 Dt ship is a bit silly? Better with fewer, but larger airlocks?

 

[MasterGwydion]

Ideally there shouldn't be a hard rule, but some sort of guideline.

20 000 tiny airlocks on a 10 000 000 Dt ship is a bit silly? Better with fewer, but larger airlocks?

I would say that they could be combined into larger airlocks, but that would be a house rule. I also agree that it should be a guideline.

 

[Condottiere]

The size of your airlock is adjustable.

It's unlikable there is a minimum or maximum cap.

The presumed default, especially in light of freebies, is two tonnes.