Key Deck Plan Design Considerations

[AnotherDilbert]

Phavoc is right.

You can vary this by up to +/- 10% as spacecraft will vary in terms of the amount of space consumed by corridors, lifts, computer systems, life support, machinery and other items that are not included in the design system.

On a 200 dT ship you have 40 dT leeway when drawing deck plans. If you want 10 dT life support machinery, just draw it in.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

The Bridge really isn’t the sort of place you would want a messy take-apart of a system clogged with nasty chemical and biological gunk, much of which may well have been filtered out precisely because it was hazardous to begin with. It really aught to have some sort of closet on the engineering deck, where there’s enough room to set up an isolation tent to keep the nasties contained while it gets fixed.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

It's much easier to deal with if you don't try to get every last portion listed, as that tends to drive people crazy (not to mention you are drawing in 2D when the object in question is really 3D).

Yes, but 3D is what SketchUp is for. If it’s going in a book, it really aught to work in all dimensions. Take the Merc Cruiser, for example. Either it’s a Sphere of 800 dTons, or it has 13 decks totaling 800 dTons; it can’t have both. At that volume, it really aught to have only 8 decks; 9 would be pushing it.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

No one’s saying you can’t draw it in... but that’s simply not the point!

“Where the Life Support is” should be a solved problem. It should be clearly delineated on existing deck plans slated for publishing. It should have a clear size requirement per volume of vessel. It should be a known quantity that the Players and GMs have knowledge of, so they can use that as a tactic, strategy, or plot point. It should not be some nebulous thing no one knows anything factual about. That’s fine for “Jump Drives” or “Gravitic Drives”, but not for “Life Support”.

 

[phavoc]

It's much easier to deal with if you don't try to get every last portion listed, as that tends to drive people crazy (not to mention you are drawing in 2D when the object in question is really 3D).

Yes, but 3D is what SketchUp is for. If it’s going in a book, it really aught to work in all dimensions. Take the Merc Cruiser, for example. Either it’s a Sphere of 800 dTons, or it has 13 decks totaling 800 dTons; it can’t have both. At that volume, it really aught to have only 8 decks; 9 would be pushing it.

That really depends on what radius you draw the sphere at. You can easily squeeze 13 decks out of it by adjusting the radius. Plus it has 4 legs, so are you including or excluding that tonnage in your overall plan?

For the most part they need not be hyper-detailed, especially since lots of players like to do customization and even draw out the basics of the ship's layout. But they don't have access or skills to the more sophisticated drawing tools that you expect when you are paying for the designs.

And the two-dee plans printed in the books is what most people use.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Clearly, you didn’t math this out before you posted. Also, if you account for the legs (which I did), that makes the radius smaller, worsening the problem of the number of decks.

So, for the sake of those unwilling or unable to do the math...

The height of a full deck (And not just the inhabitable space) is 3 meters.
The volume of 1 dTon is 13.5 cubic meters.

Finding Volume in cubic meters: 800 dTons * 13.5 cubic meters/dTon = 10800 cubic meters
Solving for Radius given Volume: ( 3 * 10800 cubic meters / 4 * Pi ) ^(1/3) = 13.7123444920225 meters
Doubling Radius for Diameter: 27.424688984045 meters
Dividing Diameter by Full Deck Height: 27.424688984045 meters / 3 meters/deck = 9.141562994681667 decks

Note that this doesn’t account for those crazily thick and sturdy legs, which would sap volume, reducing the diameter to well below 9 decks, at least one of which would have been mostly unusable anyway due to the curvature of the hull. A Mercenary Cruiser is 8 decks, and 9 is stretching it. 13 is completely beyond the pale... unless, of course, it isn’t a sphere. Which matters more, it being a sphere, or it having 13 decks? I’d argue for a sphere, but if you’re willing to have it be a lozenge shape, I suppose that works.

Going the other way, just for the sake of argument, a 13 deck diameter sphere would be about 2300 dTons... ain’t exponents tricky?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If it’s going in a book, it really aught to work in all dimensions. Take the Merc Cruiser, for example. Either it’s a Sphere of 800 dTons, or it has 13 decks totaling 800 dTons; it can’t have both. At that volume, it really aught to have only 8 decks; 9 would be pushing it.

Of course, but that is what fuel tanks are for, they fill out the irregular forms between the decks and the hull.

You can't look to close on the standard ships. They were never that good to start with and then they have been translated between systems for decades. The Mercenary Cruiser have never made any sense whatsoever, but someone thought it was a cool design and ran with it, good for him. It is a cool design.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

For the most part they need not be hyper-detailed, especially since lots of players like to do customization and even draw out the basics of the ship's layout. But they don't have access or skills to the more sophisticated drawing tools that you expect when you are paying for the designs.

And the two-dee plans printed in the books is what most people use.

We’re talking about two different things here. I’m talking about the correctness of material meant to be published; you’re talking about player stuff; the two aren’t the same conversation.


I wouldn’t expect a player ship to conform to the hypothetical geometry; of course, if it came right down to it, I’d argue that, for the sake of GM rulings, the 2D schematic necessarily must overrule any hypothetical geometry the player intends; if you didn’t sweat the details, and all of a sudden it matters, that’s on you.

You’re also neglecting that Sketchup is both free and easy. “Your kid sister” could do a convincing “Barbie Dream Home” in it.


But published material is different. The GM should be able to use either one to determine a correct ruling; therefore, they both must be correct, and therefore, entirely consistent with one another. By that metric, the Merc Cruiser is a complete failure.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

If it’s going in a book, it really aught to work in all dimensions. Take the Merc Cruiser, for example. Either it’s a Sphere of 800 dTons, or it has 13 decks totaling 800 dTons; it can’t have both. At that volume, it really aught to have only 8 decks; 9 would be pushing it.

Of course, but that is what fuel tanks are for, they fill out the irregular forms between the decks and the hull.

“Filling out” isn’t the problem. The problem is that that dimension is fundamentally too large to make a sphere of the correct volume. It either isn’t a sphere, or it is 8 decks. You get to pick one. I’m not much of a “for the sake of cannon” guy, so it’s not my choice to make.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

“Filling out” isn’t the problem. The problem is that that dimension is fundamentally too large to make a sphere of the correct volume. It either isn’t a sphere, or it is 8 decks. You get to pick one. I’m not much of a “for the sake of cannon” guy, so it’s not my choice to make.

Your math is of course correct.

But you assume 3m decks are an absolute requirement, try 2,5m decks and it works. It's a military ship squeezing in troops, not a fancy passenger ship.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Height requirements per deck is 3 meters. 2.5 meters is the height usable by sophonts only. The additional .5 meters is reserved for plumbing and conduits and the like. If you can find something specific that states that the Mercenary Cruiser is an exception to this rule, please point it out.

Regardless, the math doesn’t work for 2.5 meters either. You take the diameter of 27.424688984045 meters and divide it by 2.5 meters, and you get 10.969 decks. Even if you round in favor of an additional deck, which you shouldn’t on account of the legs, we’re still 2 whole decks shy!

In order to cram 13 decks into the required space, you need 27.424688984045 / 13 = 2.109591460311154 meters, leaving no room for necessities like plumbing & conduit. There is no practical case for justifying 13 decks and a sphere of 800 dTons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I was going by LBB2:

... with the space between decks put at about 3.0 meters.

about 3.0 m, not fixed absolutely at 3.0 m.

I agree 13 decks is over the top, but the original in CT had roughly 10 decks, and in MgT2 it has 10 decks, which is why I suggested 2.5 m between decks.

Deck plans have never been an exact science.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Let me put it like this then... The 13 decks Mongoose published is absolutely right-out. 10 decks is certainly acceptable from the perspective of a GM wanting to avoid giving his players a hard time, but, in my opinion, not acceptable according to the strictness required for materials suitable for publishing. It really should be 8, and no more. 9 is ambitious, but not unreasonable, if we assume the main central engine sticks out quite a bit, and there's some cowling around it for the sake of maintenance, instead of the sphere just having a hole cut in it.

I really think that published material from this point on should preserve the shape and dTonage of vessels, but that the deck plans should be built within the volumes defined by those shapes. In short, keep the look, keep the dTonage, but make the deck plans conform to the volume of those shapes, and according to the rules.

 

[Condottiere]

You have the Azhanti high rise concept for the deckplan, which might be the most useful for compartmentalization and fast movement between decks.

Also, if ninety five percent of your population is below five feet six inches, your deck height could be five feet ten inches; space hobbits might have even lower decks.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

If a deck isn’t 3 meters high, then a deck space of fuel or equipment isn’t half a dTon. Resizing decks is a bad plan, unless you’re going to do a lot of homework.

Also, a correction: The published Mongoose Deck Plan has 10 decks, not 13; I simply mis-remembered how bad it was; and since no one bothered to fact-check it, I’m no more guilty than anyone else in that regard. Regardless, that still equates to a dTonage of over 1047, well outside anything like a reasonable margin for error, particularly considering it doesn’t include the sizable legs.

 

[cavebear]

I know I'm jumping in here but I do think that if a ship is going to be a certain volume then the deck plans have to agree with it. Take the 100 ton scout... Nothing about it works in its original form.
I did it up in SU and then increased the size of the hull to actually fit the deck plans. Allows for a much larger ship, more fuel and a bigger and better deck plan if that is what you want to do. I am always trying to make the deck plans of any ship I create work within the volume, actual size and shape, of the 3D creation. It's just how I see everything. For me I always use 0.5 meters between decks so there is always 2.5 meters that you see. The hull is 0.5 meters too (personal choice as even the OTU Supplement 7 Traders and Gunboats on pages6 and 7 have drawings that show at least 0.5 meter thick decks (showing piping etc)).

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Yes, my point exactly, Cavebear. Just like the average person can now fully simulate space-shots on a scrawny Ultrabook, we can also properly evaluate whether or not a deck plan fits into the intended shape; and not doing so when you’re publishing campaign materials is just lazy. Properly vetted Campaign materials are a must!

 

[cavebear]

Yes, my point exactly, Cavebear. Just like the average person can now fully simulate space-shots on a scrawny Ultrabook, we can also properly evaluate whether or not a deck plan fits into the intended shape; and not doing so when you’re publishing campaign materials is just lazy. Properly vetted Campaign materials are a must!

Yup. It is too easy to do it right now. Not doing it right is lazy and now everybody can look at a set of deck plans and build a ship in 3D. Not too many are happy when nothing fits the way it should :roll: . First thing you think of is why the heck did the creator not do the job right. Not going to buy their next product...(ominous silence in the great halls of DriveThruRPG)...now are we? :twisted:

 

[Condottiere]

They're Scoutships.

Ergonomics may not have been a priority, and what's described as corridors and rooms, may actually be crawlspace and cubbyholes.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

You are missing the point entirely. If the deck plan doesn't fit the assigned shape, a publisher is obligated to change the deck plan to match the shape, or the shape to match the deck plan, in order to release a quality product. If a piece of equipment doesn't have a full half-dTon to fit in, the deck plan should be drawn in such a way as to illustrate where the loss is being made up by fractional spaces elsewhere. We are not talking trivial differences in volume and shape... we are talking egregious ones. Please have a closer look at the posted Scout SketchUp pictures.