EDIT - I've cut and pasted these comments on existing threads, or started new ones, so to keep better track of things.
General
(1) Ships with multiple decks should definitely have a side view available to people. As well as at least one external view. Art generates interest which sells books (or pdf’s).
(2) For the small craft, airlocks and bridges are different sizes, with no apparent reasoning for that. Also the airlocks are sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. The Imperium is really, really, really big on standardization. Having airlocks for most small craft always on the same side (or on both sides) means small craft can dock using equipment that covers a wide range of craft.
(3) On designs where turrets are listed, some show “double turret”, or “triple turret” when it should read hardpoint. Players may opt for customized designs or change out turrets. Hardpoints simply denote that a weapon MAY be placed there.
(4) Some plans have avionics marked, some have computer, some have sensors. Shouldn’t they all be lumped under the same umbrella of avionics?
(5) Some designs seem to have an over-abundance of free-standing freshers. Military designers aren’t worried about potty parity. Since each 2-man cabin has a fresher, the number of free-standing ones should be reduced to common areas only.
(6) There appears to be at least two different artists drawing deckplans, as you can tell the difference between the details on some of the drawings. Illustrations like deckplans need to be universal in their appearance (at least drawing wise).
(7) Corridor width, usually one or two squares, should make sense for the size of the vessel, the number of people expected to traverse it on occasions, and it's intended purpose. Main passageways leading from airlocks probably should be two wide. Secondary passages you don't need to hump gear or cargo down could be one wide, especially if they are access corridors to say a turret or other compartment little used. Civilian ships should definitely have wider passageways, military ships can get away with tighter things, but they should keep in mind the idea of the purpose of the passage.
(8) Airlocks should be sized for their purpose. Smaller ships might have a single square, larger ones should have bigger ones (and some wider rather than just deep). There doesn't seem to be a logical pattern for airlocks throughout the designs.
Free / Far Trader
(1) The common area is flipped between the Free and Far Trader for no apparent reason. Adding more fuel to the cargo hold makes more sense than changing the upper deck between models.
(2) The Far Trader has an enclosed corridor in the cargo hold area that the Free Trader does not. It is too small to serve as a cargo storage area. What is it’s purpose?
(3) The stand-alone fresher on the upper deck is located opposite from the common area. Design wise it should be closer to the area where the majority of usage will occur.
(4) Access to the upper deck is via a hatch (assuming a ladder as well) that goes into the cargo bay. This means there is no way to get to the upper deck if the cargo hold is evacuated. And on the Free Trader model the hatch is on the floor in the common area. There should be a lift from the lower deck to the upper deck. Passengers aren’t likely to be climbing up and down ladders like a crewmember.
(5) I see no turret emplacements or access to pre-installed hardpoints anywhere.
(6) The nose part of the trader seems too elongated, if you compare to older versions and the illustrations. It should be wider and shorter.
Lab Ship
(1) On the docking appendage the lift section has an airlock at the end of it, but it’s listed as a lift.
(2) Is the space on the docking appendage meant to be exposed to space, with only the lift tube pressurized? The illustration shows crossbeams that make it possibly appear that way, but it isn’t clear.
(3) Quadrant 1 laboratories have the entire section as a single one. And the main passageway through the entire area winds its way through every workspace. Scientists would become quite annoyed with people walking in their experimentation zones, not to mention if there was a leak of a substance it would get into the entire compartment. Labs COULD be handling dangerous chemicals, animals, energy, etc, and should be self-contained in the event of an emergency. The single corridor on the outside of the ring should continue through this zone as well. Also quadrant 1 has additional space in it that is not replicated elsewhere. Is this intentional? Since the idea of the ring is to rotate having one section that is larger and more massive than another can cause instability if they are not using internal grav plating.
(4) There is an airlock placed right next to the bridge. From a security standpoint that is not good. The command and control sections should be furthest away from external access points.
(5) It would be easier to read the deckplans if they were laid horizontal instead of vertical. This would also allow two sections and a drive pod to be displayed so a player or ref would only need to pay attention to the connections on the ends. It also makes it easier to print and use the deckplan to draw upon when playing since there are fewer sections to worry about connecting together.
(6) What is the small craft that is listed on the illustration? It’s supposed to be a 40ton pinnace, which is illustrated later. This craft appears to be in the 20 ton range.
Launch
(1) One side of the entire bay is a cargo door. That’s larger than any other small craft. It would make more sense to put in a much smaller cargo access point since the launch is designed for small cargo’s only. The ability to transport a 3Dton container should be more than sufficient for this ship. If you re-do the cargo door you could easily put three 3Dton containers internally and still be able to get around them to the engineering section, and the door would only need to be two squares wide.
Mercenary Cruiser
(1) The deck numbering is from the bottom up, a reversal from previous designs. This is confusing, as normally decks are numbered from “top” to “bottom”.
(2) A side view, showing the deck stacking, would be very useful. Also each page should have the same breakdown showing what the numbered items and compartments mean for faster reference.
(3) The maneuver drive is now moved to the bottom of the sphere, with the landing legs no longer having the drive units.
(4) At least one of the access points that provide movement between decks should be re-done as a lift. Also, there is no access point for cutter crew to board the ships while they are docked on any deck. Used to be on the bridge deck.
(5) Deck 10 - The space on the upper side of the owners suite is blank. What is supposed to go there?
(6) Deck 9 – Sickbay is located here, but there is no lift access for casualties on stretchers to get here. The old design had sickbay next to the air/raft docking bay. There is no air/raft docking here.
(7) Deck 8 – Space is at a premium on ships. Why would the captain need both his office and his cabin right off the bridge? His cabin should be wherever ‘officer country’ is.
(8) Deck 7 – In the Galley area there appears to be a double-airlock at the bottom-most lift access point.
(9) Deck 6 – The common area is too big and open. Space ships are all about compartmentalization due to the dangers of vacuum. And there is another common area on Deck 4. There shouldn’t be two zones for recreation of those sizes. There are also two ‘dead’ blocks on the illustration in the middle corridor. What purpose do they serve? The air/raft docking area is too small to hold a 4dton craft. The ‘entry’ area seems to be a huge waste of space.
(10) Deck 5 – The external access point from Deck 6 would be better suited on the cargo deck to facilitate moving cargo and things like ammunition.
(11) Deck 4 – No comments
(12) Deck 3 – No comments
(13) Deck 2 – Are those lower deck access points (4) next to the port and starboard cutter wells?
(14) Deck 1 – No comments
Modular Cutter
(1) There is only a single pilot station shown on the drawing. The templates would be better served to have a universal one station/two station bridge, since small craft have the same control space requirements. The ones for the launch or whatever that craft is on the lab ship look far better.
(2) The module appears to be at least 38Dtons on the illustration.
(3) Since the cutter sometimes is module-less, it would make more sense to swap the position of the cargo and storage area to the forward section, allowing crew access to it while the module is not present.
(4) I do like that example modules are illustrated. More detailed art work would be very nice here, since the cutter swaps in various modules.
Patrol Corvette
(1) The placement of the forward turrets doesn’t seem right. The way they are jutting out into the main corridor seems forced. The neck itself also seems too narrow, and the corridor is only a single square (1.5m) wide. Main corridors should be two squares wide, or at least they are in other ships.
(2) The upper cargo hold seems pretty big for a patrol corvette. And the docking space for the launch doesn’t make sense because the launch can’t get in there sideways.
(3) The G-Carrier docking zone on the lower deck seems overly large, unless that was by design to allow for access. If the G-Carrier is out or the door opened you cannot move between upper and lower decks because there is no direct corridor (access is through the G-Carrier space. There are two hatches (one goes into the cargo area, again, inaccessible if open to space) and there is another directly into the engineering section (engineering should have it’s own secure access point).
Pinnace
(1) There is a single bridge station, when there should be two.
(2) The deckplan has too much tonnage allocated to it.
Safari ship
(1) The specifications on the Safar ship seem to have changed. Now there are 11 cabins, when previously there were 8.
(2) The decks aren’t labeled as upper and lower (not a big issue). If there are landing legs they aren’t showing up in the design. The air/raft has replaced the ATV, so is the air/raft leaving from an upper entry point or a lower one?
(3) The old safari ship had a double sandcaster turret, but no space set aside for a magazine. Ships that fire ammunition-based weapons need to have a storage area immediately next to them to store ammunition.
Scout Courier
(1) Interested to see the stats for this. The inclusion of the workshop is new. The loss of the common area for crew to relax and socialize doesn’t bode well for crew relaxation on long missions.
(2) The air/raft bay seems too inset into the hull, unless it is supposed to enter/exit through the top portion of the compartment.
(3) The original scout/courier was not as long, but wider at the rear. The silhouette of the ship has changed over time. There also used to be both an upper and lower area at the rear of the wedge (not in the last MGT version however).
Seeker Mining
(1) It appears that there are cargo bay access points to the port and starboard of the cargo hold, but they open up into blackened portions, as if they are going nowhere.
(2) There is another one of those corridors that appear to go nowhere in the cargo hold.
Ships Boat
(1) Not sure what those half-triangles are meant to be. A 2Dton wide ship should be able to accommodate seating 2 + 1, with a walkway in between.
(2) Again we see the differences in artist work for the deckplan itself.
Shuttle
(1) Why is there an airlock that opens directly onto the bridge compartment? There seems no reason for that to exist.
(2) The engines for the shuttle should be embedded in the winglets, giving a user the entire width of the shuttle compartment to load cargo from the rear. This is how it’s been in previous deckplan layouts.
(3) I like the fact that there are cargo bay doors in the front (both sides) and the rear. It lends a usefulness to the design.
Slow Boat
(1) There is no need for two airlocks on a ship this small.
Slow Pinnace
(1) Only one bridge station is present, there should be two.
Subsidized Liner
(1) Cargo space is a wee bit off (nearly 300 tons on the deckplan. Also cargo would most likely have separate holds, or at least not be one GIANT space. Might be easier to have port and starboard holds with direct access (the plan only calls for 64tons of cargo, roughly 10% of the total tonnage).
(2) The layout of the rooms leaves a lot to be desired. The common area and galley in the forward section have no walls to split the areas up for the two different uses. Cramming spa/steam rooms in the forward section seems like they were just being shoved in there.
(3) There is no differentiation between crew section and passenger section.
(4) The bridge is on the main passenger deck. It should be removed to a different area (there are four to choose from)
(5) There are four decks, but not labeled sequentially, just what their primary purpose is.
(6) A lift! Finally…
(7) The deckplan has the (I assume) low berths listed as #9, Office. Low berths should be set away from the paying passengers, since the two are very different paying classes of passengers.
(8) No hardpoint access is listed anywhere.
Subsidized Merchant
(1) There are now 19 stateroom present, when the design (originally) calls for only 13
(2) No hardpoint access is listed.
Yacht
(1) Okay, seriously.. one common compartment to rule them all? It’s H-U-G-E!!!
(2) The overall deckplan make no logical sense, it seems like stuff was just thrown and/or crammed in there. This one needs to be tossed and redone.
General
(1) Ships with multiple decks should definitely have a side view available to people. As well as at least one external view. Art generates interest which sells books (or pdf’s).
(2) For the small craft, airlocks and bridges are different sizes, with no apparent reasoning for that. Also the airlocks are sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. The Imperium is really, really, really big on standardization. Having airlocks for most small craft always on the same side (or on both sides) means small craft can dock using equipment that covers a wide range of craft.
(3) On designs where turrets are listed, some show “double turret”, or “triple turret” when it should read hardpoint. Players may opt for customized designs or change out turrets. Hardpoints simply denote that a weapon MAY be placed there.
(4) Some plans have avionics marked, some have computer, some have sensors. Shouldn’t they all be lumped under the same umbrella of avionics?
(5) Some designs seem to have an over-abundance of free-standing freshers. Military designers aren’t worried about potty parity. Since each 2-man cabin has a fresher, the number of free-standing ones should be reduced to common areas only.
(6) There appears to be at least two different artists drawing deckplans, as you can tell the difference between the details on some of the drawings. Illustrations like deckplans need to be universal in their appearance (at least drawing wise).
(7) Corridor width, usually one or two squares, should make sense for the size of the vessel, the number of people expected to traverse it on occasions, and it's intended purpose. Main passageways leading from airlocks probably should be two wide. Secondary passages you don't need to hump gear or cargo down could be one wide, especially if they are access corridors to say a turret or other compartment little used. Civilian ships should definitely have wider passageways, military ships can get away with tighter things, but they should keep in mind the idea of the purpose of the passage.
(8) Airlocks should be sized for their purpose. Smaller ships might have a single square, larger ones should have bigger ones (and some wider rather than just deep). There doesn't seem to be a logical pattern for airlocks throughout the designs.
Free / Far Trader
(1) The common area is flipped between the Free and Far Trader for no apparent reason. Adding more fuel to the cargo hold makes more sense than changing the upper deck between models.
(2) The Far Trader has an enclosed corridor in the cargo hold area that the Free Trader does not. It is too small to serve as a cargo storage area. What is it’s purpose?
(3) The stand-alone fresher on the upper deck is located opposite from the common area. Design wise it should be closer to the area where the majority of usage will occur.
(4) Access to the upper deck is via a hatch (assuming a ladder as well) that goes into the cargo bay. This means there is no way to get to the upper deck if the cargo hold is evacuated. And on the Free Trader model the hatch is on the floor in the common area. There should be a lift from the lower deck to the upper deck. Passengers aren’t likely to be climbing up and down ladders like a crewmember.
(5) I see no turret emplacements or access to pre-installed hardpoints anywhere.
(6) The nose part of the trader seems too elongated, if you compare to older versions and the illustrations. It should be wider and shorter.
Lab Ship
(1) On the docking appendage the lift section has an airlock at the end of it, but it’s listed as a lift.
(2) Is the space on the docking appendage meant to be exposed to space, with only the lift tube pressurized? The illustration shows crossbeams that make it possibly appear that way, but it isn’t clear.
(3) Quadrant 1 laboratories have the entire section as a single one. And the main passageway through the entire area winds its way through every workspace. Scientists would become quite annoyed with people walking in their experimentation zones, not to mention if there was a leak of a substance it would get into the entire compartment. Labs COULD be handling dangerous chemicals, animals, energy, etc, and should be self-contained in the event of an emergency. The single corridor on the outside of the ring should continue through this zone as well. Also quadrant 1 has additional space in it that is not replicated elsewhere. Is this intentional? Since the idea of the ring is to rotate having one section that is larger and more massive than another can cause instability if they are not using internal grav plating.
(4) There is an airlock placed right next to the bridge. From a security standpoint that is not good. The command and control sections should be furthest away from external access points.
(5) It would be easier to read the deckplans if they were laid horizontal instead of vertical. This would also allow two sections and a drive pod to be displayed so a player or ref would only need to pay attention to the connections on the ends. It also makes it easier to print and use the deckplan to draw upon when playing since there are fewer sections to worry about connecting together.
(6) What is the small craft that is listed on the illustration? It’s supposed to be a 40ton pinnace, which is illustrated later. This craft appears to be in the 20 ton range.
Launch
(1) One side of the entire bay is a cargo door. That’s larger than any other small craft. It would make more sense to put in a much smaller cargo access point since the launch is designed for small cargo’s only. The ability to transport a 3Dton container should be more than sufficient for this ship. If you re-do the cargo door you could easily put three 3Dton containers internally and still be able to get around them to the engineering section, and the door would only need to be two squares wide.
Mercenary Cruiser
(1) The deck numbering is from the bottom up, a reversal from previous designs. This is confusing, as normally decks are numbered from “top” to “bottom”.
(2) A side view, showing the deck stacking, would be very useful. Also each page should have the same breakdown showing what the numbered items and compartments mean for faster reference.
(3) The maneuver drive is now moved to the bottom of the sphere, with the landing legs no longer having the drive units.
(4) At least one of the access points that provide movement between decks should be re-done as a lift. Also, there is no access point for cutter crew to board the ships while they are docked on any deck. Used to be on the bridge deck.
(5) Deck 10 - The space on the upper side of the owners suite is blank. What is supposed to go there?
(6) Deck 9 – Sickbay is located here, but there is no lift access for casualties on stretchers to get here. The old design had sickbay next to the air/raft docking bay. There is no air/raft docking here.
(7) Deck 8 – Space is at a premium on ships. Why would the captain need both his office and his cabin right off the bridge? His cabin should be wherever ‘officer country’ is.
(8) Deck 7 – In the Galley area there appears to be a double-airlock at the bottom-most lift access point.
(9) Deck 6 – The common area is too big and open. Space ships are all about compartmentalization due to the dangers of vacuum. And there is another common area on Deck 4. There shouldn’t be two zones for recreation of those sizes. There are also two ‘dead’ blocks on the illustration in the middle corridor. What purpose do they serve? The air/raft docking area is too small to hold a 4dton craft. The ‘entry’ area seems to be a huge waste of space.
(10) Deck 5 – The external access point from Deck 6 would be better suited on the cargo deck to facilitate moving cargo and things like ammunition.
(11) Deck 4 – No comments
(12) Deck 3 – No comments
(13) Deck 2 – Are those lower deck access points (4) next to the port and starboard cutter wells?
(14) Deck 1 – No comments
Modular Cutter
(1) There is only a single pilot station shown on the drawing. The templates would be better served to have a universal one station/two station bridge, since small craft have the same control space requirements. The ones for the launch or whatever that craft is on the lab ship look far better.
(2) The module appears to be at least 38Dtons on the illustration.
(3) Since the cutter sometimes is module-less, it would make more sense to swap the position of the cargo and storage area to the forward section, allowing crew access to it while the module is not present.
(4) I do like that example modules are illustrated. More detailed art work would be very nice here, since the cutter swaps in various modules.
Patrol Corvette
(1) The placement of the forward turrets doesn’t seem right. The way they are jutting out into the main corridor seems forced. The neck itself also seems too narrow, and the corridor is only a single square (1.5m) wide. Main corridors should be two squares wide, or at least they are in other ships.
(2) The upper cargo hold seems pretty big for a patrol corvette. And the docking space for the launch doesn’t make sense because the launch can’t get in there sideways.
(3) The G-Carrier docking zone on the lower deck seems overly large, unless that was by design to allow for access. If the G-Carrier is out or the door opened you cannot move between upper and lower decks because there is no direct corridor (access is through the G-Carrier space. There are two hatches (one goes into the cargo area, again, inaccessible if open to space) and there is another directly into the engineering section (engineering should have it’s own secure access point).
Pinnace
(1) There is a single bridge station, when there should be two.
(2) The deckplan has too much tonnage allocated to it.
Safari ship
(1) The specifications on the Safar ship seem to have changed. Now there are 11 cabins, when previously there were 8.
(2) The decks aren’t labeled as upper and lower (not a big issue). If there are landing legs they aren’t showing up in the design. The air/raft has replaced the ATV, so is the air/raft leaving from an upper entry point or a lower one?
(3) The old safari ship had a double sandcaster turret, but no space set aside for a magazine. Ships that fire ammunition-based weapons need to have a storage area immediately next to them to store ammunition.
Scout Courier
(1) Interested to see the stats for this. The inclusion of the workshop is new. The loss of the common area for crew to relax and socialize doesn’t bode well for crew relaxation on long missions.
(2) The air/raft bay seems too inset into the hull, unless it is supposed to enter/exit through the top portion of the compartment.
(3) The original scout/courier was not as long, but wider at the rear. The silhouette of the ship has changed over time. There also used to be both an upper and lower area at the rear of the wedge (not in the last MGT version however).
Seeker Mining
(1) It appears that there are cargo bay access points to the port and starboard of the cargo hold, but they open up into blackened portions, as if they are going nowhere.
(2) There is another one of those corridors that appear to go nowhere in the cargo hold.
Ships Boat
(1) Not sure what those half-triangles are meant to be. A 2Dton wide ship should be able to accommodate seating 2 + 1, with a walkway in between.
(2) Again we see the differences in artist work for the deckplan itself.
Shuttle
(1) Why is there an airlock that opens directly onto the bridge compartment? There seems no reason for that to exist.
(2) The engines for the shuttle should be embedded in the winglets, giving a user the entire width of the shuttle compartment to load cargo from the rear. This is how it’s been in previous deckplan layouts.
(3) I like the fact that there are cargo bay doors in the front (both sides) and the rear. It lends a usefulness to the design.
Slow Boat
(1) There is no need for two airlocks on a ship this small.
Slow Pinnace
(1) Only one bridge station is present, there should be two.
Subsidized Liner
(1) Cargo space is a wee bit off (nearly 300 tons on the deckplan. Also cargo would most likely have separate holds, or at least not be one GIANT space. Might be easier to have port and starboard holds with direct access (the plan only calls for 64tons of cargo, roughly 10% of the total tonnage).
(2) The layout of the rooms leaves a lot to be desired. The common area and galley in the forward section have no walls to split the areas up for the two different uses. Cramming spa/steam rooms in the forward section seems like they were just being shoved in there.
(3) There is no differentiation between crew section and passenger section.
(4) The bridge is on the main passenger deck. It should be removed to a different area (there are four to choose from)
(5) There are four decks, but not labeled sequentially, just what their primary purpose is.
(6) A lift! Finally…
(7) The deckplan has the (I assume) low berths listed as #9, Office. Low berths should be set away from the paying passengers, since the two are very different paying classes of passengers.
(8) No hardpoint access is listed anywhere.
Subsidized Merchant
(1) There are now 19 stateroom present, when the design (originally) calls for only 13
(2) No hardpoint access is listed.
Yacht
(1) Okay, seriously.. one common compartment to rule them all? It’s H-U-G-E!!!
(2) The overall deckplan make no logical sense, it seems like stuff was just thrown and/or crammed in there. This one needs to be tossed and redone.
