Confirmation on drawing deckplans/illustrations
- Thread starter phavoc
- Start date
FreeTrav
Cosmic Mongoose
Yes, that's correct. Note that two squares is 13.5 cubic meters, so one of the dimensions is necessarily a little off if you're using a version of Traveller that assigns 14 cubic meters to the displacement ton, or if you're using GURPS Traveller, which uses English measurements and assigns a displacement ton as 500 cubic feet.
far-trader
Mongoose
DFW is correct in the math, and the 14m3 statements, however even in CT the deckplan correlation is a soft conversion one.
Using/treating 2 squares (each 1.5 x 1.5m x3.0m) as equaling 1ton is accepted. The difference between 13.5m3 and 14.0m3 is considered negligible, especially when applying the +/- 10%-20% slop allowance in many of the rules, from CT forward.
It's a simplification for the purpose of round figures (square graphing).
GT being non-metric even keeps the same (very close to anyway) convention and substitutes 5' for 1.5m when drawing deckplans. And 500 cu ft for 1ton, with 2 squares (each 5' x 5' x 10') making 1ton.
The only exception to this standard* was TNE where 2m squares were used (because the House Rules for combat used 2m scaling) to define tons. In that 1 square (of 2m x 2m x 3.5m high) equaled 1ton.
* if it can be called a standard when most canon designs seemed to ignore any relevance between actual tonnage and the deckplans, with some ships showing double or more the listed tonnage, and areas of the ship being short or over, apparently at the whim of the person drawing
/rant ;-)
Using/treating 2 squares (each 1.5 x 1.5m x3.0m) as equaling 1ton is accepted. The difference between 13.5m3 and 14.0m3 is considered negligible, especially when applying the +/- 10%-20% slop allowance in many of the rules, from CT forward.
It's a simplification for the purpose of round figures (square graphing).
GT being non-metric even keeps the same (very close to anyway) convention and substitutes 5' for 1.5m when drawing deckplans. And 500 cu ft for 1ton, with 2 squares (each 5' x 5' x 10') making 1ton.
The only exception to this standard* was TNE where 2m squares were used (because the House Rules for combat used 2m scaling) to define tons. In that 1 square (of 2m x 2m x 3.5m high) equaled 1ton.
* if it can be called a standard when most canon designs seemed to ignore any relevance between actual tonnage and the deckplans, with some ships showing double or more the listed tonnage, and areas of the ship being short or over, apparently at the whim of the person drawing
/rant ;-)
far-trader
Mongoose
DFW said:
:lol:
Thanks for the grin
I actually deckplanned a tesseract ship ages ago (stole my even older tesseract dungeon mostly) as the result of a misjump. So the idea is not entirely (imo) out to lunch that ships might be distorted by jumpspace.
Nuclear Fridge Magnet
Mongoose
My old CT Traders & Gunboats states that a deckplan design "is valid" if it comes in at -- I'm not making this up -- 10 to 20 percent plus or minus the total deckplan squares given by the base tonnage! :shock:
Still, this is from the people who didn't notice the Tardis effect of their 3-deck Type S layout...
Still, this is from the people who didn't notice the Tardis effect of their 3-deck Type S layout...
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
The 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m squares, implies that every bit of space is a that shape. I would say its not the case, (well at least it my humble designs) hulls are various shapes so I allow extra 'squares' for bits pinched off by lower parts of the hull and vice versa.. So its worth allowing extra or less for different heights of space in hull. The stuff I do always keeps an eye on the external shape of the hull as design that too! Though I fill out some sections with 'black' space ala the older plans in White Dwarf etc... that can allow for the pinched off sections for effectively.!
Things to bear in mind:
Raising or lowering the height of certain sections.
I.E. fuel in wings (1.5m) High or Cargo deck ceilings at double the height.
Combining sections ie sickbays or staterooms is a nice touch.
Adding in rooms etc from tonnage assigned to other things (ie lounges, med bays, galleys, ready rooms etc)
Its worth adding large fixtures like tables, sofas etc...adds a nice touch.
Small Craft being small craft, get double the squares as they are thinner... (I think I got that right?)
I think ultimately as long as the plan looks right and doesn't take the michael thats ok with me. My head would melt if I worried too much about the internal volume...
Things to bear in mind:
Raising or lowering the height of certain sections.
I.E. fuel in wings (1.5m) High or Cargo deck ceilings at double the height.
Combining sections ie sickbays or staterooms is a nice touch.
Adding in rooms etc from tonnage assigned to other things (ie lounges, med bays, galleys, ready rooms etc)
Its worth adding large fixtures like tables, sofas etc...adds a nice touch.
Small Craft being small craft, get double the squares as they are thinner... (I think I got that right?)
I think ultimately as long as the plan looks right and doesn't take the michael thats ok with me. My head would melt if I worried too much about the internal volume...
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
DFW said:
I'm afraid I find it easier to work in 'squares'
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
14 was just a rounded figure from 30 years ago. Players were free to use it or not. The game, as originally written, never expected players ship designs to be exact. There was a fudge factor (or error %) players could use if elbows didn't move.
nats
Banded Mongoose
FreeTrav said:
Feet is an American measurement. Here in the UK, and for that matter all of Europe to my knowledge, we have been decimal for quite a while. Its only property developers here who still work in cubic feet for some reason known only to themselves, and my parents who also refuse to change to decimal measurements and temperatures.
dmccoy1693
Cosmic Mongoose
Where exactly is it stated that a ton is 14k/l? I'm sure I've read over it time and time again, but I just don't know where it is at exactly.
far-trader
Mongoose
dmccoy1693 said:
First (I think) reference is CT LBB 2 page 13:
"The Hull: ...As a rough guide, one ton equals 14 cubic meters (the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen)."
Further clarified for deckplans on page 21:
"Deck Plans: ...The preferred scale for the interior should be 1.5 meters per square, with the space between decks put at about 3.0 meters. One ton of ship displacement equals approximately 14 cubic meters. Therefore one ton equals two squares of deck space."
So it's actually the 14m3 that is the approximate measure ("rough guide" and "approximately") while the 13.5m3 is the exact measure ("equals").
Similar threads
