Confirmation on drawing deckplans/illustrations
- Thread starter phavoc
- Start date
iainjcoleman
Banded Mongoose
DFW said:
In the UK people's heights are in feet and inches, people's weights are in stone and pounds, beer is in pints and distances are in miles.
For everything else, and certainly any serious applications in engineering, design or science, we use metric measurements.
rust said:We also still have lots of historical units floating around over here, manyDFW said:
of them only used by certain professions or in certain regions and slowly
turning into a kind of secret tongue of the rare few initiates ...
Carpenters throughout the EU still like using the old system as much of building deals with fractions and this is very difficult to do in metric as opposed to the old system. Base 12 is better suited.
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
DFW said:
Yep, I'm 5'5" and ride 10 miles up the canal to work..... I do plans in Metres, refer to most other things in inches, lbs and whatever...
Theres been a hoohaar about selling things in markets in metric only instead of traditional lbs etc !!
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
rust said:
The US and China use both metric and the other. Why limit to just one standard? Besides, China needs to build all our stuff for the US.
FreeTrav
Cosmic Mongoose
Just a bit of clarification - the feet/inches/yards/miles system is called English not because it's used in England, but because that's where the US got the system from - as I understand it, the system was originally created by the French and adopted by the English.
(Then, the French invented the metric system, and the English (along with most of the world) adopted it.)
(Then, the French invented the metric system, and the English (along with most of the world) adopted it.)
I've always used the dTon defined as 13.5 cubic meters. (I prefer the 'd' distinction, though MgT has dropped it.)
While based on an approximate volume of hydrogen (under specific, implied, 'ideal' conditions) of a given mass, it is a uniquely defined unit of measure. The slack (13.5 cubic meters being a bit shy of the closer 14 cubic meter ideal) is easily accommodated by the 10/20% leeway stated in most rule sets for deckplan vs. design 'tonnage'.
It is convenient to note, for those of us Imperial system of units impaired thinkers, that the 'two squares, two high' of 1.5m x 3.0m x 3.0m is very close to 5 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft. 1.5 meters being within an inch shy of 5 feet - it is a more convenient 'base' scale than 1 m squares (~ 3 feet 3 and 3/8ths inches I believe).
The hard numbers - tons and credits - defined by the rules are to provide balanced in design tradeoffs that support the game mechanics. Ultimately, I never use these explicitly in game - rather they are the basis for costs and relative sizes. While I use ratings (i.e. PP-6) and quantities for total ship 'size' and cargo/item counts in game, everything else I use mainly for design purposes, with deckplans approximate.
While based on an approximate volume of hydrogen (under specific, implied, 'ideal' conditions) of a given mass, it is a uniquely defined unit of measure. The slack (13.5 cubic meters being a bit shy of the closer 14 cubic meter ideal) is easily accommodated by the 10/20% leeway stated in most rule sets for deckplan vs. design 'tonnage'.
It is convenient to note, for those of us Imperial system of units impaired thinkers, that the 'two squares, two high' of 1.5m x 3.0m x 3.0m is very close to 5 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft. 1.5 meters being within an inch shy of 5 feet - it is a more convenient 'base' scale than 1 m squares (~ 3 feet 3 and 3/8ths inches I believe).
The hard numbers - tons and credits - defined by the rules are to provide balanced in design tradeoffs that support the game mechanics. Ultimately, I never use these explicitly in game - rather they are the basis for costs and relative sizes. While I use ratings (i.e. PP-6) and quantities for total ship 'size' and cargo/item counts in game, everything else I use mainly for design purposes, with deckplans approximate.
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
I thought it was (1.5m x 1.5m x 3m) x 2 = 13.5 cubic meters? Now I need to look it up again. OK. Nevermind me. Carry on.
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
If you change to ft, do you then have to change the rest of the rules to ft? Ranged weapons, blast range, speed? Then there is the weight of everything. Maybe it depends on the Traveller set used. GURPS already does the 500 cubic feet thing.
ShawnDriscoll said:
Correct - my wording sounded misleading. (1.5x3x3 = 13.5)
If you wanted to, you could - but that is a bit of work for something that is a bit arbitrary to begin with. As I pointed out with deckplans - the conversion is simple (1.5 m ~ 5 ft) when one sticks to 1.5 m square, but becomes less trivial otherwise.ShawnDriscoll said:
Yep - different rule sets used different systems (GURPS is largely Imperial, i.e. 'English' with feet and pounds, IIRC).
IIRC, the core rulebook (or maybe it was high guard) explicitly dropped the 'd'. However, I'd expect some inconsistency in following thatAndrewW said:
Some folks also take 'dTons' to equate to mass (as opposed to being derived from a volume of hydrogen under given situations of a defined mass). The d being for displacement, which represents volume, not mass - why I prefer the distinction personally.
Cmdr. Akihira
Mongoose
I'm thinking of running a traveller merchant campaign, and want to use a type R susisdised liner, upgraded slightly.
In the core rule book, it has 2 decks, in Merchant Prince & Scoundrel the same 400 ton hull design has 3, surely this is incorrect?
In the core rule book, it has 2 decks, in Merchant Prince & Scoundrel the same 400 ton hull design has 3, surely this is incorrect?
I seem to be blind, I cannot find a deck plan of a 400 dton ship in my copyCmdr. Akihira said:
of the Merchant Prince supplement ? :shock:
Anyway, there are many ways to design a hull, so there are many diffe-
rent ship types of the same volume, and I could well imagine one with
a shorter or slimmer hull and three instead of two decks.
AndrewW
Emperor Mongoose
Also there are updated deckplans available for download for the core rulebook:
Also there are updated deckplans available for download for the core rulebook:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travdeckplanspt1.pdf
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travdeckplanspt2.pdf
The Subsidized Merchant in those specifies 3 metres high for the lower deck, but space wise I think it was supposed to be 6 metres high, making it equivalent to two decks. Even then it's still a little off.
Also there are updated deckplans available for download for the core rulebook:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travdeckplanspt1.pdf
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travdeckplanspt2.pdf
The Subsidized Merchant in those specifies 3 metres high for the lower deck, but space wise I think it was supposed to be 6 metres high, making it equivalent to two decks. Even then it's still a little off.
Cmdr. Akihira
Mongoose
Sorry, the 400 ton hull is in Traders & Gunboats not Merchant Prince.
The two "other" versions are allegedly Q ships, yet visually differ from the ship they are trying to portray?
e.g. the standard gun turrets are missing, a dead giveaway
The version in scoundrel has enough room to carry four fighters stacked on top of each other, in two 6 meter height decks?
I know it sounds odd, but I have some players, who will ask me these kind of questions, and will at some stage probably want to try it.
The two "other" versions are allegedly Q ships, yet visually differ from the ship they are trying to portray?
e.g. the standard gun turrets are missing, a dead giveaway
The version in scoundrel has enough room to carry four fighters stacked on top of each other, in two 6 meter height decks?
I know it sounds odd, but I have some players, who will ask me these kind of questions, and will at some stage probably want to try it.
Similar threads
