Excel Ship Designer v2025.04.18

[AnotherDilbert]

Better?

Yes!

Actually, look at Effective # Mods? Should be 3?

 

[Arkathan]

#SAKNAS means #MISSING? VLOOKUP failed to find a result.

Small bridge for 35 Dt small craft undefined?

That's because a small bridge at that size would be a zero. A small bridge on a 35Dt craft would be a Dual Cockpit (2.5 Dt vs 3Dt Standard).
The only reason it works in the main bridge slot is I made the tonnage for size zero the same as standard. Should probably go back and make that an error, instead.

Then again, the small bridge costs more than a cockpit and give a negative for ops, Expanded the table to cover zero for aux con.

 

[Arkathan]

Actually, look at Effective # Mods? Should be 3?

Got it.

 

[Arkathan]

New Link.


Added an option to calculate on the Adjusted Displacement.
Make sure you check the orange sections to ensure the correct tonnage is being used in the calculation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

New Link.

AccessDeniedAccess denied.Anonymous caller does not have storage.objects.get access to the Google Cloud Storage object.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Power plant fuel calculation still problematic:

Should be 3 Dt fuel for 4 weeks for a 22 Dt power plant.

Cell H10 incorrect: [ROUNDUP(C10*VLOOKUP('3-Pwr Plant'!B11;'3-Pwr Plant'!S2:X7;6);0)/4]
The chosen number of weeks [cell C10] should be outside the ROUNDUP function.
Should be:
= C10 / 4 * ROUNDUP(VLOOKUP('3-Pwr Plant'!B11;'3-Pwr Plant'!S2:X7;6);0)

Edit: Works for fusion, does not work for chemical plants. See next post.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Power plant fuel minimum of 4 weeks (by static validation) is incorrect for Chemical power plants.

160 Dt fuel does not quite fit in a 100 Dt hull.

Note that there is no minimum or rounding for chemical power plants.

So:
Cell C10 should not be limited to natural number ≥4, but allow decimal numbers >0? Perhaps a red warning for less than four weeks for fusion plants?

The rounding should be done in the fuel calculations in the table Pwr!S2:X7, e.g. X7 should be = ROUNDUP( (H11+H12)/10; 0 ) / 4, note including the weeks (outside the rounding), so this is the weekly rate.

Add a column to the table Pwr!S2:X7 with a minimum value (1 Dt for fusion, 0 for chemical).

Cell Fuel!H10 should be = MAX( C10 * VLOOKUP('3-Pwr Plant'!B11;'3-Pwr Plant'!S2:X7;6); the new minimum from the table, e.g. VLOOKUP('3-Pwr Plant'!B11;'3-Pwr Plant'!S2:Y7;7) )


I'll send you a copy with some changes to explain.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That's because a small bridge at that size would be a zero. A small bridge on a 35Dt craft would be a Dual Cockpit (2.5 Dt vs 3Dt Standard).
The only reason it works in the main bridge slot is I made the tonnage for size zero the same as standard. Should probably go back and make that an error, instead.

That's a bit of a philosophical problem. I would agree that the size of small bridge for a 35 Dt craft is undefined. Not zero, not any specific value, just undefined.

As I rather want my spreadsheets to work, regardless of niggling details like this, I make a house rule to define it to 3 Dt, the smallest value in the table.

So a small bridge is the same size as a regular bridge, but (insignificantly) cheaper and worse. Not a sensible choice, but the design does not break if I e.g. change the size of the craft from 55 Dt to 45 Dt. Good enough for me...


If you make it an error it's probably closer to RAW.

 

[Arkathan]

Try the link again. I was able to download it 3 times - after I recopied the link in edited post. First post on page one also worked.

 

[Arkathan]

That's because a small bridge at that size would be a zero. A small bridge on a 35Dt craft would be a Dual Cockpit (2.5 Dt vs 3Dt Standard).
The only reason it works in the main bridge slot is I made the tonnage for size zero the same as standard. Should probably go back and make that an error, instead.

That's a bit of a philosophical problem. I would agree that the size of small bridge for a 35 Dt craft is undefined. Not zero, not any specific value, just undefined.

As I rather want my spreadsheets to work, regardless of niggling details like this, I make a house rule to define it to 3 Dt, the smallest value in the table.

So a small bridge is the same size as a regular bridge, but (insignificantly) cheaper and worse. Not a sensible choice, but the design does not break if I e.g. change the size of the craft from 55 Dt to 45 Dt. Good enough for me...


If you make it an error it's probably closer to RAW.

I went with three tons of sucky.

And I moved the division out of the roundup. turns out it was done on the Power Plant page. I had the base multiplier for type divided for weekly use and put that into the formula, to cover the chemical plant, even though defaulting to 4 weeks usage, resulting in the rounding errors. Fixed that in latest. see if that works, then I'll look into fixing it with your example.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, now it worked.
.
.
.
Downloaded "Ship_Designer_Blank_v2021.7.c1.xlsx". All comments on that version.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Power plant fuel problematic:

Power plant:

Fuel:

Should be 3 Dt = 22/10, round up.


C10, the specified number of weeks, also needs to be outside the rounding.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Chemical power plant fuel almost correct...

Power plant:

Fuel

Correct, 80 Dt for two weeks, so 160 Dt for four weeks.

But the chemical fuel should not be rounded up. That has to made in the table on the Pwr tab.

Example (contrived, for illustration):

Power plant:

Fuel:

Should be 0.666 × 10 / 2 × 4 = 13.32 Dt

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And I moved the division out of the roundup. turns out it was done on the Power Plant page. I had the base multiplier for type divided for weekly use and put that into the formula, to cover the chemical plant, even though defaulting to 4 weeks usage, resulting in the rounding errors. Fixed that in latest. see if that works, then I'll look into fixing it with your example.

Agreed, since fusion and chemical uses different time bases (4 weeks vs 2 weeks), that has to be handled in the table on the Pwr tab.

 

[Arkathan]

Chemical power plant fuel almost correct...

Power plant:

Fuel:

Should be 0.666 × 10 / 2 × 4 = 13.32 Dt

I'm getting this now:

Also doesn't require a ton of fuel when power output = 0 anymore.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Collector based on hull tonnage, not drive capacity tonnage:

Collector, factor 3 for a 520 Dt hull:

Jump drive, factor 3 for a 600 Dt capacity:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Tab Drives:

Cell F5: Range error, backup jump drive not included in page cost.


Fuel: Cell F5: Range error, Metal hydride tanks not included in page cost.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Record Sheet:

No note about drive capacity, would be useful?

Here Annic Nova, 530 Dt hull, drives for 600 Dt:

 

[Arkathan]

Tab Drives:

Cell F5: Range error, backup jump drive not included in page cost.


Fuel: Cell F5: Range error, Metal hydride tanks not included in page cost.

Nor tonnage. Fixed.
Last three posts: Fixed.

Thanks.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Currently, space/starship bridges seem to be in a state of flux; when they scrapped the two percent rule, they compensated by making the cost based on multiples of hundred tonnes of hull volume, but with the addition of specialized command centres and apparently cockpits being able to control spacecraft larger a hundred tonnes, it's not exactly clearly defined what each type can do.

2. It may well be that they are minimum sizes required for specific functions, whether at default, penalty or bonus.

3. Speaking of the two percent rule, if you had a free default two tonne airlock per hundred tonnes, you have two issues, where's the money coming from, and you have to deduct the tonnage from the total volume.