HG Capital Ship Reaction Drive TL and Cost

[snrdg121408]

Hi all,

Three part question concerning the Reaction Maneuver Drive:

1. What is the TL of a Reaction Drive?

Looking at (1) TNE/T4, (2) GT: Starships, and (3) GURPS VE the Reaction
Drive TL begins at (1) 5, (2) 7, and (3) 6.

My thought is that this type of drive standard should start at either TL 5 or
6 to use the Lo/Hi Tech Options table.

2. What is the cost of a Reaction M-Drive?

HG Spacecraft Options p. 42 states "The reaction drive takes the same
space as a gravitic drive, and cost less..."

Unfortunately, this time looking at TNE/T4 and GURPS VE wasn't very
helpful. Looking at the TNE/T4 tables the liquid rockets (reaction?) appear
to cost more per m^3 than the advanced thruster (gravitic). GURPS VE
has the liquid rockets as $25 and everything else as $100 compared to
the reactionless thrusters that with base costs that range from $20 to
$4,000 x weight with a minimum cost of $500.

GT: Starships appears to show that reaction drives cost is cheaper than a
reactionless system. The lowest TL Reactionless M-Drive is TL 8 and
costs 0.825 compared to the Rocket Drive/8 at 0.42.

Should the reaction drive cost be MCr0.25 in MgT?

 

[BP]

Seems this little detail is missing...

HG p. 58 lists tonnage and costs for reaction M-Drives for small craft. However, the cost per ton is the same - i.e. 2 MCr per ton (why a blasted table for this???). For small craft the tonnage for Reaction drives is smaller (exactly 1/2 up to sK drives - then it starts to decrease just slightly in a rather stupid fashion - to fit .25 and .5 numbers it looks like).

So for smaller drives the price is the same, but the drives are more effective at ~1/2 the size.

And for larger ships the size is the same, but 'costs less' by some undefined amount.

All in all - quite a mess.

As to the small drive tables - making up arbitrary numbers and then making them look more complicated is bad enough - not being consistent in the calcs is even worse because of the .25 rounding, prices per ton vary up and down. Below shows the ratio of reaction to gravitic tonnage by drive code:

Code	R/G
sA	0.50
sB	0.50
sC	0.50
sD	0.50
sE	0.50
sF	0.50
sG	0.50
sH	0.50
sJ	0.50
sK	0.50
sL	0.46
sM	0.43
sN	0.41
sP	0.39
sQ	0.38
sR	0.36
sS	0.38
sT	0.38
sU	0.39
sV	0.40
sW	0.41
sX	0.41
sY	0.42
sZ	0.42

Whoever came up with this nonsense should be... well, is flogged a naval term? This is just sad. I see a lot of misuse of tables as Traveller evolved.

Most tables in Traveller shouldn't exist as they are simple formulas (if you can't multiple/divide by 2 then, well let someone else design your ships, etc.). Further, the original hexadecimal system worked great and should have been kept across the board. Now it is a mix of hexadecimal and alpha (lower case 's' for small - come-on, the ship needs a small designator - not each component).

Most of the examples of this abuse are coming from people trying to achieve a level of apparent 'intellectual complexity' or because they are simply too ignorant. The former actually breaks the primary reason for having a table in the first place - simplicity (especially for data that is non-linear). Justifying this by trying to be 'real-world' in a totally fictional context that also needs to be playable is just ignorant.

<clump - me dismounting from my pet-peeve ranting platform :roll: >

 

[BP]

As for TL - gee, that could go as low as TL-6 (Core pg 4 - '...rocketry bring about dawn of the space age.'), though I would probably make it TL-7, TL-6 could be proto-type per HG- pg 53.

Actually, looking at HG pg. 53 and seeing Manouevre drives at TL-7 up to TL-9 is interesting, considering 'gravity manipulation' isn't listed till TL-9! (Argh - wish publishers would shuck the old model and eliminate editors in place of proof readers - they'd save money and reduce customer disdain!).

 

[snrdg121408]

Afternoon BP,

Again thanks for the reply to this and most of my other questions.

Seems this little detail is missing...

Yep, and I'm glad that there is another person that seems to think that the cost for a reaction drive is missing. :wink:

However, the cost per ton is the same - i.e. 2 MCr per ton

Now that is interesting and I missed that when I looked at the table before. I looked to see what the difference was between the gravitic and reaction drives only through the sK drive code. This doesn't sound right, at least in my opinion, since a captil ship's m-drive cost is only MCr0.5 per dton.

(why a blasted table for this???).

Unfortunately, there are a fair number of players and referees that prefer to things in tables. LBB 2: Starships uses tables which where done away with in LBB 5: High Guard. Personally, I like formulas since they are, in my opinion, more flrxible.

is flogged a naval term?

Yep, navies used the term flogging, of course landlubbers also used flogging but usually called the practice of whipping. If a thin stick or cane was used the proper term would be caning.

Most tables in Traveller shouldn't exist as they are simple formulas (if you can't multiple/divide by 2 then, well let someone else design your ships, etc.). Further, the original hexadecimal system worked great and should have been kept across the board. Now it is a mix of hexadecimal and alpha (lower case 's' for small - come-on, the ship needs a small designator - not each component).

Most of the examples of this abuse are coming from people trying to achieve a level of apparent 'intellectual complexity' or because they are simply too ignorant. The former actually breaks the primary reason for having a table in the first place - simplicity (especially for data that is non-linear). Justifying this by trying to be 'real-world' in a totally fictional context that also needs to be playable is just ignorant.

<clump - me dismounting from my pet-peeve ranting platform :roll: >

(Stage whisper) Somebody get the tranq gun we need to calm him down a little bit. No, better yet hook him up to the generator for emergencvy power. Never mind he's calmed down now:wink:

I can take tables or leave them, of course they do throw things off when trying to create a spreadsheet. Yeah, the hexadecimal system was good since you could get an overview of the statistics of the vessel.

So, does Capital Ship Reaction Drive cost of 0.25 per dton seem reasonable under the circumstances? :wink:

Again thanks for the comments.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello BP,

Part of the reason I suggested having the standard Reaction drive starting at TL 6 was based on the Spacecarft Options chapter along with the other Traveller variants stated TLs.

I thought I read someplace that Mongoose does play testing before releasing their books in addition to having editors.

I'm still leaning towards TL 6.

Thanks again for the help.

 

[AndrewW]

I thought I read someplace that Mongoose does play testing before releasing their books in addition to having editors.

Yes, playtesting is done.

 

[BP]

Playtesting probably doesn't include a lot of design style work (given the time it takes and the accounting style mentality it requires)...

And proofreaders should be taking care of this (editors often are too focused on the bigger picture and miss the minutia).

TL-6 does offer rockets - but M-Drives are a little more than just ballistic, orbital devices - from other posts (and your initial) one, I get the impression that TLs vary quite a bit between game editions. CT to MgT match up pretty fair - except the TL-7 ~ Tl-9 for obvious reasons!

If you apply the prototype tables [HG pg 53] to reaction drives (M-drive) and the example of Pulse lasers on HG pg 52 - reaction drives would be developed at TL-7, prototyped at TL-6 and improved at TL-8 (or TL-6, TL-5, TL-7 in your case). You might also want to differentiate the M-number with TL (as with the table going from TL-7 to TL-9).

And tables are ok - as long as they come from a formula and can be derived from them (instead of doing something stupid that is not only more complex, but unjustifiable like this table), or have no real pattern (random events, modifiers, etc). An example would be using the Titius-Bode rule in the CT Scouts for orbits or even the travel times tables - these formulas and numbers are too much for most people. The 2 x tons is not only not too much - HG uses even more complicated formulas for say armour ( :wink: ) and drive potentials and the Primitive & Advanced Spacecraft... tables might have been a good thing here!

I have a feeling the tables concept for reaction drives and alternate power were 'borrowed' from other editions (which might have been too table happy).

 

[AndrewW]

Playtesting probably doesn't include a lot of design style work (given the time it takes and the accounting style mentality it requires)...

Playtesting is mostly concerned with mechanic aspects, making sure NPC's aren't overpowered and the like.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello BP,

Logically speaking the reaction maneuver drive has to have been a standard for a period of time before a reliable gravitic drives were invented. Gravitic drives become standard because they do not require reaction mass which frees up space for more important stuff like guns, munitions, and other cargo.

MT has gravity units and thruster plates but does not appear to have any spacecraft reaction drives.

TNE/T4 TLs are as far as I can tell are the same as CT. TNE/T4 FF&S provides several types of reaction drive and one advanced thruster that requires reaction mass or fuel. Contragravity Drives (reactionless) start at TL 9, improve at TL 10, and peak at TL 12. The Thruster plate fills in the gap at TL 11.

HEPlaR TL 10
Ion Drive TL 7
Daedalus and Bussard Drives TL 9
Liquid Rockets TL 5 to 8
Nuclear Rockets TL 7 to TL 10

GT TLs to CT TLs list
GTL 9 = CT 9, 10, & 11
GTL 10 =CT 12 & 13
GTL 11 = CT 14
GTL 12 = CT 15
GTL 12 - CT 16

From GT: Starships Reactionles thrusters begin at GTL 8 and top out at GTL 13.

GT: Starships Reaction Drives
Liquid fuel rocket - GTL 7 & 8
Fission rocket - GTL 7 & 8
HEPlaR- GTL 9, 10, and 11
Rocket Drive - GTL 8 through 13
Metal/Oxide Rocket - GTL 8
Bussard Ramjet - GTL 9 & 10.

Looking at the items above I see that the earliest reaction drive appear at between 1 and 4 TLs before reactionless drives.

Further, the TL text on Core Rulebook appears to be in a small conflict with HG.

T4 placed the majority of the tables in the back of the book, however the book does also use formula. The formulas rival MgT.

I'm yawning very badly so I'm go to dsy Good Night.

 

[captainjack23]

As to the small drive tables - making up arbitrary numbers and then making them look more complicated is bad enough - not being consistent in the calcs is even worse because of the .25 rounding, prices per ton vary up and down. Below shows the ratio of reaction to gravitic tonnage by drive code:

Code	R/G
sA	0.50
sB	0.50
sC	0.50
sD	0.50
sE	0.50
sF	0.50
sG	0.50
sH	0.50
sJ	0.50
sK	0.50
sL	0.46
sM	0.43
sN	0.41
sP	0.39
sQ	0.38
sR	0.36
sS	0.38
sT	0.38
sU	0.39
sV	0.40
sW	0.41
sX	0.41
sY	0.42
sZ	0.42

Whoever came up with this nonsense should be... well, is flogged a naval term? This is just sad. I see a lot of misuse of tables as Traveller evolved.

Where does that count as nonsense ? Not trying to start a fight, just trying to grasp the objection.

I ran a guick graph of it, and it looks like it's well acounted for by a two line step function - which maps reaction drives becomeing less efficient as they get larger; and with with one discontinuity at overlap. I see lots of functions like this in QA - particulaly with regard to the discontinuity- it's the result of lots of values with different efficiency points being collapsed, and differing functions being overlaid. Did you expect a pure linear function throughout the range (ie r=.5g) ? That's actually fairly rare in most engineering situations.


IIR, the original drive tables were designed to model discontinuous functions - which cannot be reduced to simple formulae without advanced math (calculus, not square roots ); probably becuase the original designers had strong engineering and hard sciences backgrounds.
Reducing everything to a simple formula was an option they could have taken, I suppose, and they largely did with HG. But, in general, "formulizing" in these kind of situations can be argued to be a simpification for playability just as much as wacky made up tables can be.

Unfortunately, while I basically agree with your premise as regards consistency and not thinking so damned hard in a fictional context, you might want to consider that the line between "apparent 'intellectual complexity' " and trying to have some kind of consistent framework can be pretty hard to clearly define.

I'd suggest that when one considers that the goal of most RPG rules systems is "trying to reconcile being consistent in a totally fictional context that also needs to be playable" one sees how difficult the problem is; which comes with failures, I admit. But few of them thru ignorence.

Referrring to the real world is just one approach to doing it, abeit with its own set of compromises and canned worms.

Drifting off into random discussion, it's interesting to note that traveller has lots of stuff which move in discreet jumps and not smooth curves (J and arguably M drives, for one) ..I wonder how much the shiny new advances in Quantum mathematics and physics of the 70's and 80's influenced this ?


By the way: good pet peeve rant !

 

[BP]

I ran a guick graph of it, and it looks like it's well acounted for by a two line step function - which maps reaction drives becomeing less efficient as they get larger; and with with one discontinuity at overlap. I see lots of functions like this in QA - particulaly with regard to the discontinuity- it's the result of lots of values with different efficiency points being collapsed, and differing functions being overlaid. Did you expect a pure linear function throughout the range (ie r=.5g) ? That's actually fairly rare in most engineering situations.

In this case it is a nearly linear function and inconsistent with the other majority of linear (or simplistic curves) even in the same tables. And there is no logic to it other than the .25 rounding - which is also inconsistent (with S.D.s of other tables). The graph is strictly constant, dips down, dips up - for which there is no game logic. 'Nonsense' is in the context not only as an RPG mechanic, but in its own context (of the other tables).

I have a wee bit of experience with RW data sets myself (from non-destructive testing, to writing rotary turbine failure simulation training, hashing algorithms, AI financial analysis, etc.) - which is the reason I could instantly look at this table and not only see the discontinuity, but the curve - and the analysis that it came about from discrete .25 increments fitted to an attempted downward trend (which results in a discrete stepping function). If this were RW data I might accept it - but, question the transition point, or the method of measurement - i.e. consistency of significant digits. For an RPG table in the context of the other tables - 'nonsense' was the nicest word I felt was applicable. (re: pet-peeve)

IIR, the original drive tables were designed to model discontinuous functions - which cannot be reduced to simple formulae without advanced math (calculus, not square roots Wink ); probably becuase the original designers had strong engineering and hard sciences backgrounds.

Yep - and I quite loved those. They made sense (in terms of the fiction) and required a table for the average user. The point you made here is that the designers were qualified. :wink:

By the way: good pet peeve rant !

My sugar was low :roll:

 

[captainjack23]

I ran a guick graph of it, and it looks like it's well acounted for by a two line step function - which maps reaction drives becomeing less efficient as they get larger; and with with one discontinuity at overlap. I see lots of functions like this in QA - particulaly with regard to the discontinuity- it's the result of lots of values with different efficiency points being collapsed, and differing functions being overlaid. Did you expect a pure linear function throughout the range (ie r=.5g) ? That's actually fairly rare in most engineering situations.

In this case it is a nearly linear function and inconsistent with the other majority of linear (or simplistic curves) even in the same tables. And there is no logic to it other than the .25 rounding - which is also inconsistent (with S.D.s of other tables). The graph is strictly constant, dips down, dips up - for which there is no game logic. 'Nonsense' is in the context not only as an RPG mechanic, but in its own context (of the other tables).

I have a wee bit of experience with RW data sets myself (from non-destructive testing, to writing rotary turbine failure simulation training, hashing algorithms, AI financial analysis, etc.) - which is the reason I could instantly look at this table and not only see the discontinuity, but the curve - and the analysis that it came about from discrete .25 increments fitted to an attempted downward trend (which results in a discrete stepping function). If this were RW data I might accept it - but, question the transition point, or the method of measurement - i.e. consistency of significant digits. For an RPG table in the context of the other tables - 'nonsense' was the nicest word I felt was applicable. (re: pet-peeve)

Heh. Put that way, I can see why it got up your nose.

That said, Its clearly an artifact of the constricted nozzle effects in the larger HT1000 chemoblast reaction systems. Their idea to change the reaction mix to increase thrust was okay, but cheaping out on the downstream hardware was stupid - without a correspondingly scaled change in the exhaust port profile and remachining the contact surfaces....well, as you see, the resulting turbulance is actually reducing the overall gain from adding HydroxilizaBoomazine-Stoff (tm) in the mix. 'Tards.
.....And there's the failure rate of the type L units. Just as well they mostly sell in the Vargr extents. They like the sparks and thumps.

By the way: good pet peeve rant !

My sugar was low :roll:

"Give in to your hunger, young BP; strike down your lunch and join the....um ....fuller more..uh....satiated side....or somthing..... "

Okay, not all SW paraphrases work in every context. Still works better than some of the actual ones...

 

[BP]

...Its clearly an artifact of the constricted nozzle effects in the larger HT1000 chemoblast reaction systems. Their idea to change the reaction mix to increase thrust was okay, but cheaping out on the downstream hardware was stupid - without a correspondingly scaled change in the exhaust port profile and remachining the contact surfaces....well, as you see, the resulting turbulance is actually reducing the overall gain from adding HydroxilizaBoomazine-Stoff (tm) in the mix. 'Tards.
.....And there's the failure rate of the type L units. Just as well they mostly sell in the Vargr extents. They like the sparks and thumps.

Well, you'd think they'd know how to deal with this problem by now - what with it being the Third Imperium and all... but, at least we have a rational explanation! :lol:

"Give in to your hunger, young BP; strike down your lunch ...

The imagery here is perhaps best left unshared...

Okay, not all SW paraphrases work in every context...

Nonsense - do not be swayed by the Dark side...

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening gang,

So what is the consensus for the base Capital reaction drive TL and cost?

I'm favoring TL6 since the gravitic drive at TL7 is the preferred
technology with a base cost of MCr0.25 per ton of drive.

 

[BP]

Good Afternoon snrdg121408,

To me a reaction drive is one that does not require an atmo (i.e. has oxidizer in the case of chemical, or lacks the need in cases of plasma, etc.). Since the reaction drives in MgT use hydrogen - I would think they are a little more exotic than say TL6 which I read as more chemical (and jets) - capable of orbit, but very limited in terms of interstellar (due to load vs thrust inefficiencies esp. in gravity wells).

Since, no other part of a space craft is below TL7 (computers/armour/weapons) and TL6 is defined as Industrial while TL7 is defined as Pre-Stellar (Core pg 4) - I would go with TL7 myself (with TL6 having prototype modifiers).

(I think - well know actually since its stated in plain English - the TL7 for Gravitics given in HG conflicts with the TL definitions in Core and that these should probably begin at TL9).

As for cost - well, even though the price is the same in small spacecraft, I can buy the idea of it being less expensive to scale up (bulk is in bigger nozzles/chambers, less so the technical parts).

Comparing to gravitic drives =>
Small Craft are 2 MCr per ton (HG table pg 58)
SpaceCraft are 2 MCr per ton + additional 2 MCr (except Code A :roll in Core table pg 107
Capital Ships are 0.5 MCr per ton

Of course, don't look too close - a Small Craft sX gives a 100-ton ship 6G performance for only 17 tons for 34 MCr versus the Code C drive at 5 tons and 10 MCr (not getting on my box... not getting on my box... :?)

Or a Code U 4G drive for a 2999 tonner is 37 tons for 76 MCr versus an M4 at 52.5 tons and 26.25 MCr (at least this is sort of a trade/compromise situation).

Anyway, after careful consideration and due deliberation, while I would like to say 0.35 MCr per ton, I would say your suggestion of 0.25 MCr per ton wins hands down when looking at the numerous other tables in HG.

(Ironically, I designed a 200 ton starship with a reaction drive last month, but with no costs - which unknowingly avoided this issue).

So now we are left with what to do about making >6G reaction drives for larger ships (I think that might merit a different post)...

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello BP,

Okay, now I see that we are not connecting on the definition of a
reaction drive. While trying to figure out the TNE/T4 design rules
I picked up a copy of The Aviation/Space Dictionary where I got my idea
of a reaction drive/engine/motor. Here's the definition:

"An enigne the develops THRUST by its reaction to a substance ejected
from it; specifically, such an engine that ejects a JET or stream of gases
created by buring of fuel within the engine. Also called a REACTION
MOTOR. A reaction engine operates in accordance with Newton's third law
of motion, i.e., to every action (force) there is an equal and opposite
reaction. Both rocket engines and jet engines are reaction engines."

Apparently, I missed the reference that states a reaction drive uses
hydrogen. Could you please provide a page number? I've read through
the Spacecraft options and design sequences without any success. For that
matter I thought I read something about petro-chemical fuels and I can't
seem to find that again either :? .

True, that the designs start a TL 7, which is a pitty since that limits the
possibility of contacting a group that is just getting into space. To be
honest I've defaulted to the HG Gravitic drive TL for both the reaction
drive and solar sail.

Now if the Gravitic Drive's TL were 9 per the core rulebook, I'd agree that
the reaction drive is TL 7 and solar sail at TL 8 mainly a rich sophonts toy.

The only reason why I used 0.25 is that I'm lazy and glanced at the
difference in the cost of a Gravitic and Reaction Drives which I saw was
roughly half. The number 0.35 as the cost factor is also a good fit.

I'll let you start the discussion on the 6G drive.

Thanks for the reply

 

[BP]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - when I stated 'for me a reaction drive is...' I meant only in the context of HG, which means beyond atmo (since we are talking space ships). Jets are also reaction drives - but they are limited to atmo or require a substitute (oxidizer)... anyway that can get way technical...

For MgT, reaction drives in the context of spacecraft, burn the same fuel as Jump drives - see the shaded inset box in HG on page 43. Thus the reaction fuel is hydrogen.

So jet planes might even go to TL5 and certainly would fit TL6 - and these are reaction drives. But spacecraft reaction drives would start at Pre-Stellar or TL7.

(Personnally, I never got into the TNE/T4 design rules and other versions for this very reason. I am technical enough to punch holes in the logic that is too based on real world and anal enough to probably rip their tables to shreds (to say nothing of errors). My suspension of disbelieve threshold requires extrapolations that are vague, general, yet robust and consistent. CT was very well done in this - the hard numbers were simply relative ranges that provided a desired and designed balance. And the technical specifics were not addressed - since they can't be unless they already exist (and then its not fiction and the writers better be experts before they start to shoe the real work into playable roleplay rules)...

To truely 'play' reaction drives well requires more math and explanations. For me this is fine and I can actually do this (not to mention using the computer), but most laypeople intrinsically understand the relationship between reduced mass (fuel) and the acceleration advantage - but doing calculus for an RPG would probably stretch the talents and the patience of almost everyone. So RPG attempts at addressing this without the math result in an overly complex and invariably broken system - unless they stick to just the vaguest generalizations.

MgT's methods of addressing Reaction drives doesn't seem too bad - but it is incomplete (as you have discovered). To me this should be kept to the simplest - Gs, Tonnage, Cost, TL, and Fuel consumption (and range). While I have a few problems with the hokey tables, discontinuities (between craft scales) and missing data (such as we've been discussing) - I think MgT has done a fair job of addressing something that cannot be left completely out of the Traveller settings...

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning BP,

No, problem since we now have a common reference on a reaction drive.
I see your point, however small craft, and a number of spacecraft or
starships that operate in both space and atmosphere using the same
maneuver drive.

Thank you for the page number, which I just skimmed over while reading
through the Spacecraft options. :roll: So maybe I didn't imagine a
reference to "petro-chemical" fuel, now to find the page. :wink:

TNE/T4 and GT use both tables and formulas. Of course the systems also
provide the means to design nonstandard systems. For the most part
the standard designs can be created using the formulas.

Even MT, at least to me, uses in a limited way formulas and a majority of
tables in the design sequence. Of course I've found small issues in all of
them when designing since the formulas appear to use a standard
constant. I've looked at the COAC and Wet Navy (3 part article in
Challenge for maritime ship design) design sequences and had problems
recreating known aircraft and ships.

I have a similar, though not at the same level as you :wink: , reaction and
suspension of belief level. For me if the table or formula supports the
text and equipment designed makes sense then I'm okay with the
sequence. In the case of the HG reaction drive, regardless of fuel type,
being at the same TL as a gravitic drive does not make sense.

I'm a very rusty pre-calculus type myself but not up to your level apparently :wink: .
Yep, the larger audience for Traveller prefers a less technical method of
designing. Gives me something to do and off the streets :lol:

I'm all for simple and consistent in design rules. I also agree that overall
Mongoose has done a great job on the design systems, with some
omissions that throw wrenches into the system.

Have a good rest of the day/evening.

 

[BP]

To me the design rules for Aircraft versus Spacecraft only make sense as independent setups - Gravitics providing a nice exception, of course. The scale differences (although extremely large aircraft certainly can find a home in Traveller) also make using dtons cumbersome. Hopefully the new vehicle system design rules will account for these well.


As to my suspension of disbelief when it comes to RPG 'rules' and formula... Real world data almost never fits a true mathematical formula (set of curves). However, all data can be fitted to a formula. The goodness of the fit being up to the user - if you read this carefully you will notice that, regardless, the formula will rarely hold 100% true in the RW - maybe not even come close. This directly applies to Traveller.

Therefore - all Traveller tables (not of a random nature) should be derived from a formula. There are no reasons other than laziness, lack of talent or lack of knowledge to do otherwise. Formula based tables are easy to generate accurately and consistently. Plus everything can be extrapolated (whether it 'makes sense' of not).

Conversely - all formulas can be reduced to tables for ease of use - not to mention avoiding scaring off the large number of math-phobic/impaired players!


Technically this is akin to digital versus analog. All discrete digital data can be exactly fit to analog curves. Data is generally lost due to precision when going the other way around (the exception being when things are linear - which almost never happens in the RW).

The consumer is lead to believe digital is 'better'. And this is often 'true' in some terms of RW manufacturing, marketing, distribution and capacity - although fractal, procedural and parametric methods can outperform on capacity - processing it is generally much more cost prohibited as is the design and implementation. So practically, digital is 'better' for the mass market - but fundamentally, analog can always be better than digital (since digital is essentially a special case of analog). Implementation and technology are what makes the most difference. For instance, analog phones are actually better (quality/reliability) than digital if the market were small enough (which it no longer is). Analog HD TV would be superior to Digital - but broadcasters would be extremely limited to the number of channels available.

To put his in Traveller terms - formulas are analog equivalent of tabular data. And thus all non-random tables could be derived from formulas. I can even create a formula that matches the silly drive table mentioned previously - but instead of a simple multiplication it would involve several terms and thus be needlessly complex. And all 'random' data can also be recreated from formulas - this is what we see in fractal compression algorithms and in noise functions - however, if I take any given random table in Traveller and try to do so I may end up with a formula the size of the book the table came from.

Oops - I better eat lunch...

 

[AndrewW]

To me the design rules for Aircraft versus Spacecraft only make sense as independent setups - Gravitics providing a nice exception, of course. The scale differences (although extremely large aircraft certainly can find a home in Traveller) also make using dtons cumbersome. Hopefully the new vehicle system design rules will account for these well.

Aircraft are covered under the vehicle system and it doesn't use dTons though there is a conversion (space used there is just 2/27's of a dTon). Also it is formula based, tables are used to tell you things like what percentage of space a type of system uses, cost, etc.

Note: Anything is subject to change before publication.