JTAS 16 Page 71 Error?

[Stargrove]

At the top of the PDF for JTAS 16 (I purchased a couple of weeks ago) page 71 for the Flea Trader it shows the CLASS for the ship as: "OPENSOURCETRADER7.16_FINAL_FINAL2_ACTUALFINAL", which I am pretty sure is wrong.

Does anyone with a possibly different version of the PDF or the printed copy of the book have the correct CLASS for that ship?

 

[Terry Mixon]

At the top of the PDF for JTAS 16 (I purchased a couple of weeks ago) page 71 for the Flea Trader it shows the CLASS for the ship as: "OPENSOURCETRADER7.16_FINAL_FINAL2_ACTUALFINAL", which I am pretty sure is wrong.

Does anyone with a possibly different version of the PDF or the printed copy of the book have the correct CLASS for that ship?

Sadly, mine is the same.

 

[Stargrove]

That's funny. Maybe I will put that in the Spacecraft entry for the Fantasy Grounds conversion I am working on and see if anyone notices.

 

[hopsnbaer]

That is the actual name of the ship.

It is so cheaply designed it has a messed-up blueprint name.

The description

This design apparently originated from the Solomani Rim, its
blueprints containing a short text describing it as ‘an attempt to
make starfaring more accessible to the common person’, without
any attribution to its creator. The original design file was named
‘OpenSourceTrader7.16_Final_Final2_ACTUALFINAL’ but it is now
known by the name ‘flea trader’.

 

[Endie]

Yep, I thought it was actually quite a funny (and obvious!) joke. The text does explain the joke.

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

At the top of the PDF for JTAS 16 (I purchased a couple of weeks ago) page 71 for the Flea Trader it shows the CLASS for the ship as: "OPENSOURCETRADER7.16_FINAL_FINAL2_ACTUALFINAL", which I am pretty sure is wrong.

Does anyone with a possibly different version of the PDF or the printed copy of the book have the correct CLASS for that ship?

As the writer of that article, I can positively confirm this was very much intentional.

 

[Stargrove]

As the writer of that article, I can positively confirm this was very much intentional.

View attachment 7484

Awesome. I'm definitely leaving it in now!