New Deck Plans
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
dafrca said:Is there some reason they would want to have them blurry?E.T.Smith said:
If not, then I agree, it would be nice to have them cleaned up to be sharp when they are viewed as well as printed out.
But to be honest, I am happy that they at least made them better.
Daniel
I think the reason is to make the PDF files smaller. The glorantha PDF books are the same way; very low resolution maps.
I'm hoping for a Glorantha map pack that is high res and can be downloaded separately at some point. That would alleviate the problem of having too many high resolution images in a PDF.
Now I can hope the same for Traveller. God I hope the SM sector maps are higher resolution.
Mithras
Banded Mongoose
Each unit is 6x8m, which is in CT is 48sqm, or 96 tons. say 100 tons including hydraulic supports and self-erecting machinery.
The complex depicted is a total of 600 tons and has fuel for 18 months, though fuel can be sourced locally. Typical occupancy is 10 scientist/engineers double bunking. One is research head, another is executive. All are ATV-0 and Vacc-0 or higher. The staff includes one scientist with Leader-1, one with Mechanics-1 and one withic Medical-1. This is a minimum. To double the occupancy, the organization simply adds a second level to the accomodation block, and doubles all supplies.
The complex depicted is a total of 600 tons and has fuel for 18 months, though fuel can be sourced locally. Typical occupancy is 10 scientist/engineers double bunking. One is research head, another is executive. All are ATV-0 and Vacc-0 or higher. The staff includes one scientist with Leader-1, one with Mechanics-1 and one withic Medical-1. This is a minimum. To double the occupancy, the organization simply adds a second level to the accomodation block, and doubles all supplies.
Mithras said:
One displacement ton in Traveller is the volume displaced by a metric ton of liquid hydrogen, which is about 14.5 cubic metres.
Assuming a height of 3 metres, this gives each of your modules a volume of 144 cubic metres, which is actually almost exactly 10 displacement tons.
Modular Cutter bays are 18m by 7.5m so you would be able to nicely fit two of your modules into one cutter module, with some spare space for deployment equipment and external accessories such as comms antennas, supply pods, etc.
Simon Hibbs
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
Can we move this to its own topic? It doesn't deserve to get lost behind a discussion of errata.
serene_muse
Mongoose
Kudos on releasing the deckplans and promptly! 8)
However I have a difficult time reading the scale and chart and parts of the deckplans. Would it be possible to use fonts and perhaps vector drawings as much as possible? IIRC this would keep the pdf file size down while also scaling & printing nicely. The current ones pixelate very quickly.
I noticed this also with the deckplans in the recent S&P. :evil:
However I have a difficult time reading the scale and chart and parts of the deckplans. Would it be possible to use fonts and perhaps vector drawings as much as possible? IIRC this would keep the pdf file size down while also scaling & printing nicely. The current ones pixelate very quickly.
I noticed this also with the deckplans in the recent S&P. :evil:
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
Mithras said:
Quite the opposite, really. I like the results so far, but this sort of stuff will be buried deep and almost unfindable quickly. Give it a topic of its own (with an appropriate name) and that won't be a problem.
I guess what I was getting at is that you can say that these four or five staterooms are the crew/servants quarters or those over there are. You can say that all the staterooms on the left side of the ship are for the crew if you like. If you notice that all the rooms on the left side do not have doors on the opposite wall of the hallway. Also, they are the closest to the cargo bay iris valve which leads to engineering and the command deck. That would be a logical spot.
Mithras
Banded Mongoose
I suppose its another example of less than perfect Traveller deckplanning. I liked the Close Escort precisely because the deckplan was organised, there was a plan behind the deckplan - ratings and officers were set strictly apart due to a number of mutinies in the previous war. I think the Yacht would almost certainly go the same route, if early 20th century servant-noble-staff relationships are anything to go by!
At the risk of resurrecting an old thread I just had to comment on one problem I've found with the revised deckplans that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere.
I'm in the process of starting a campaign based on the old Traveller Adventure, and so I was trying to decide which of the many versions of the Fat Trader deckplans that have been done over the years I was going to use to represent the March Harrier.
I was impressed by my first glance at the new deckplans, but then I paid more attention to the cargo deck plan and realized that it's just wrong. The two decks should be roughly the same length if they are to make any sense at all with the established look of the Fat Trader. Also, it needs to be somewhat "fat". As it is it's long and skinny and the bottom deck is almost twice as long as the top deck.
IMTU I'll be using the top deck plans, but shortening and widening the bottom deck to bring it back into line with the established look of the ship.
It would be nice if the "official" plans at some point better reflected that look.
I'm in the process of starting a campaign based on the old Traveller Adventure, and so I was trying to decide which of the many versions of the Fat Trader deckplans that have been done over the years I was going to use to represent the March Harrier.
I was impressed by my first glance at the new deckplans, but then I paid more attention to the cargo deck plan and realized that it's just wrong. The two decks should be roughly the same length if they are to make any sense at all with the established look of the Fat Trader. Also, it needs to be somewhat "fat". As it is it's long and skinny and the bottom deck is almost twice as long as the top deck.
IMTU I'll be using the top deck plans, but shortening and widening the bottom deck to bring it back into line with the established look of the ship.
It would be nice if the "official" plans at some point better reflected that look.
