Key Deck Plan Design Considerations

[Annatar Giftbringer]

So, I'm guessing the entire Star Wars saga is ruined and unwatchable due to the exterior
and interior shots/sets of the Millennium Falcon don't match...? :roll:

 

[phavoc]

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.

It's nice to see the deckplans reflect what you see in illustrations. But unless we are doing blueprint-type designs, deckplans are nice to look at, but they don't need to be to that level of detail necessarily to enjoy them. I'd actually rather they put more work into other aspects, like better resolution ship images and such. Or even making the deckplans themselves better resolution and without the overly simplistic lightning bolts indicating engineering gear (shudder).

 

[phavoc]

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.

It's nice to see the deckplans reflect what you see in illustrations. But unless we are doing blueprint-type designs, deckplans are nice to look at, but they don't need to be to that level of detail necessarily to enjoy them. I'd actually rather they put more work into other aspects, like better resolution ship images and such. Or even making the deckplans themselves better resolution and without the overly simplistic lightning bolts indicating engineering gear (shudder).

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

So, I'm guessing the entire Star Wars saga is ruined and unwatchable due to the exterior
and interior shots/sets of the Millennium Falcon don't match...? :roll:

The Millennium Falcon, as RPG Supplement material, is only ruined if you publish it as-is, instead of finding a way to make the interior and exterior consistent. This is about the quality modern RPG materials should be published by, not about Sci-Fi content that was never meant to be interacted with. Player interaction is the key difference here; their expectations based on the provided content have to be upheld for them to be able to reason about how to best interact with their environment. Inconsistency between the interior and exterior destroys that in insidious fashion, usually mid-game, leaving the purchaser of those materials wondering why the hell they should buy another shoddy product.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

It's nice to see the deckplans reflect what you see in illustrations. But unless we are doing blueprint-type designs, deckplans are nice to look at, but they don't need to be to that level of detail necessarily to enjoy them. I'd actually rather they put more work into other aspects, like better resolution ship images and such. Or even making the deckplans themselves better resolution and without the overly simplistic lightning bolts indicating engineering gear (shudder).

Oh, I don't disagree with you with regards to which details should take priority. Clearly, vector art and art quality should take precedence over consistency with the volumetric geometry. But you're forgetting two things...

1. Ship Volume available for deck plan work is something that should be done at the initial concept phase; it's a detail you start with, if you ever hope to have it match. Trying to do it after the fact means you've already failed at doing your job.

2. You need to render it in 3D for badass illustrations anyway; you might as well re-use your concept 3D model that you built the deck plans to here, instead of starting from scratch trying to get it to conform.

 

[middenface]

For the record I use sketchup for my maps and 3d models.
I have drawn out the map then built the ship around it. It's close enough to fit the plans.
On the GKG ships I import the maps then build the 3d model around it.

Worked on the scout problem too, I shifted the cargo bay aft. One of the forward staterooms looses a little bit of ceiling, the cargo bay is a weird shape and the upper galley, is more of a crawlspace.

Ships are not retangular blocks that a deckplan fits in, the hull shape will cut into ceiling space, walls etc.. Something to bear in mind, when you see more squares on a deckplan than there should be. Me I like the old Highguard +10 or -10% rule or was it 20%?

Doing a redicously close and accurrate map+model is really hard, we are dealing with a game and stuff that does not exist. So I aim for 'close enough'
As long as it roughly follows the stats then, fair enough. It's how it fits in game that matters more.
Saying that I would love to do a map+model like one of those images in the Haynes Dan Dare book.

 

[phavoc]

Oh, I don't disagree with you with regards to which details should take priority. Clearly, vector art and art quality should take precedence over consistency with the volumetric geometry. But you're forgetting two things...

1. Ship Volume available for deck plan work is something that should be done at the initial concept phase; it's a detail you start with, if you ever hope to have it match. Trying to do it after the fact means you've already failed at doing your job.

Not forgetting, just that I'm ok with close enough. The plans are in 2-D, so unless I'm able to get into a first-person shooter style animation on my computer, close enough works. In theory your ceilings may have lower heights in the corners, or there's a big frame running through the middle of the ceiling in the room due to the quirks of the shape of the hull. It's not really important in a 2-D world unless you are trying to make it part of your gaming session. If you remember the tv show Enterprise, in the captain's day cabin he had to duck around a hull frame, which is what you would expect being so close to the outer hull for that style of ship.

2. You need to render it in 3D for badass illustrations anyway; you might as well re-use your concept 3D model that you built the deck plans to here, instead of starting from scratch trying to get it to conform.

I LOVE detailed deck plans. But I also LOVE to find them at affordable prices. The amount work and effort going into them has to be properly reflected in the price. Middenface has done some excellent work for MGT, GK and himself. But I know that kind of work takes time, and at some point the more effort you put into it means fewer people are going to be willing to pay the necessary higher price for the hyper-detailing.

I HIGHLY prefer well-done deckplans, not some of the shoddy work that MGT has put in with much better work. Rendering them all in 3-D and then importing them takes time/effort, which takes us back to the money question. It's a laudable goal, but one that is difficult to balance with making some money off your work.

 

[AndrewW]

Ships are not retangular blocks that a deckplan fits in, the hull shape will cut into ceiling space, walls etc.. Something to bear in mind, when you see more squares on a deckplan than there should be. Me I like the old Highguard +10 or -10% rule or was it 20%?

Check the overall tonnage of the ship. Each ton is represented by 2 squares on a deck plan (note
that very large ships may use a different scale to get legible deck plans that will fit on a page). 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.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

If you look at the SketchUp drawings of the Scout, you’ll realize that +/- 10% isn’t the point either. There’s nothing wrong with partial half-dTon squares, so long as they’re marked that way, and it’s made clear where else in the Deck Plan the missing bits are made up.

Additionally, I’ve never been a fan of the +/- 10% rule. +/- 20 dTons to the nearest 100 dTons makes much more sense, otherwise they’d stop rounding to the nearest 100 dTons at 500 dTons... “Is a 550 dTon ship 500 dTons or 600?” “Better start rounding to 200 dTons...” “But what about 1100 dTons???” “... Crap.”

 

[madmike]

I use AutoCAD for my deck plans. I am an Engineer professionally so I strive for as much scale accuracy as I can.

Ian undertakes the 3D art for books I write and on the (rare) occasion there is an issue creating 3D models from my deck plans we will discuss the issue and I will fix it if necessary to ensure accuracy is maintained.

I put a great deal of time and effort into each ship design and the decks plans associated with those designs. I want them to be the best.

 

[Condottiere]

Total volume is directly related to engineering performance.

 

[middenface]

Additionally, I’ve never been a fan of the +/- 10% rule. +/- 20 dTons to the nearest 100 dTons makes much more sense, otherwise they’d stop rounding to the nearest 100 dTons at 500 dTons... “Is a 550 dTon ship 500 dTons or 600?” “Better start rounding to 200 dTons...” “But what about 1100 dTons???” “... Crap.”

Your missing the point. It's just the plans, not the real tonnage. As long as the the plans are 10% under or over then it is assumed to be good enough.
Doing a plan that is 100% accurate is impossible as there will be bits of the ship that would not show up on the plans, unless you want to really show stuff that has no bearing on moving around in the ship.
(some external stuff like turrets is worth showing though)
These plans are for game play and not technical design/building plans..

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Even if they're for play, if they're published designs, they should be correct. The "wiggle-room" rule is for players, not for publishers.

 

[middenface]

Well I have published my own plans and have done plans for Mongoose, Spica and a couple of others. No has actually complained that the numbers of squares is incorrect ever. That tiny bit extra or less allows for a bit of corridor space too.
So no one really cares, as long is it is about right and you don't take the P1ss.

 

[madmike]

So according to your required standard then, publishers should also provide crawl space, electrical, water supply/recycling, computer data network and life support plans to ensure accuracy?

All though I will agree that some deckplans from Mongoose and other publishers going right back to CT are not the greatest, this is a GAME not a real life contract for full naval architect plans for the USS Missouri.

As long as the deck plans are close to the displacement tonnage of a ship design (I set my personal variation to around 10% absolute maximum) and reflect what the ship design data contains, then there is no issue.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

"Crawl Space" is already accounted for with the unused half-meter that composes the 3 meter deck height. This leaves room for an 0.75 "Jefferies Tube" between two decks, whenever there isn't equipment, conduit, cable, pipes, or vents.

If it were GURPS Space, I would say "Hell yes!"; unfortunately, it's just Traveller. So I'll settle for being shown where the damn life support system is, so it can be fixed, and for the ship's Deck Plan matching the ship's hull, since any idiot with a computer can do it. Moving the gunnery cabins inboard to match every new warship since they stopped making Battleships would be nice too.

 

[phavoc]

"Crawl Space" is already accounted for with the unused half-meter that composes the 3 meter deck height. This leaves room for an 0.75 "Jefferies Tube" between two decks, whenever there isn't equipment, conduit, cable, pipes, or vents.

If it were GURPS Space, I would say "Hell yes!"; unfortunately, it's just Traveller. So I'll settle for being shown where the damn life support system is, so it can be fixed, and for the ship's Deck Plan matching the ship's hull, since any idiot with a computer can do it.

Ouch.

 

[cavebear]

Well I have published my own plans and have done plans for Mongoose, Spica and a couple of others. No has actually complained that the numbers of squares is incorrect ever. That tiny bit extra or less allows for a bit of corridor space too.
So no one really cares, as long is it is about right and you don't take the P1ss.

Love your published Moon Toad material! More than once I've replaced the standard scout with the Pukharra Class Fast Scout. I love the deck plans and the look of the ship. Only one thin bugs me about it but it is very easy to overlook I think that for playing purposes you have the right mix of accuracy and play-ability. (and I wish that my SU fu was better :mrgreen: )

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Well I have published my own plans and have done plans for Mongoose, Spica and a couple of others. No has actually complained that the numbers of squares is incorrect ever. That tiny bit extra or less allows for a bit of corridor space too.
So no one really cares, as long is it is about right and you don't take the P1ss.

“Extra Corridor Spaces” aren’t the issue here. It’s about the curvature of the hull cutting off the half-dTon tiles of the deck plan. Published material should be correct in terms of finding somewhere to put the remaining volume of equipment due to those fractional half-dTons, or just plain not make the mistake of using partial half-dTons in the first place.

 

[Infojunky]

Even if they're for play, if they're published designs, they should be correct. The "wiggle-room" rule is for players, not for publishers.

Well there is nearly 40 years of proof that that statement is incorrect.... I am just happy if they are in the ballpark, though mind you there are a number of Mongooses plans that aren't even close...