You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
RPG immersion & verisimilitude: the appearance of being true
- Thread starter sideranautae
- Start date
Infojunky said:dragoner said:I always pictured it more like a canvas topped toyota hilux myself.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/1983-1988_Toyota_Hilux_%28YN58R%29_4-door_utility_01.jpg
Fairly ubiquitous outside the 1st world.
For the record I want a Hi-Lux....
In Traveller terms it is about a ton and half.... 1.5 meters wide, 4.5 meters long....
I rented a diesel one in Guatemala years ago. Per cargo, how high? It doesn't fit easily in a grid, you are right there.
sideranautae
Mongoose
dragoner said:It was 4 tons:An air/raft can carry four persons plus four tons of cargo. MgT doesn't have any provisions for cargo in its list though.
It had a total bounded volume of 4 tons itself. When spec'ed it had hardly any cargo space. Enough for some luggage. & 4 passengers
sideranautae said:dragoner said:It was 4 tons:An air/raft can carry four persons plus four tons of cargo. MgT doesn't have any provisions for cargo in its list though.
It had a total bounded volume of 4 tons itself. When spec'ed it had hardly any cargo space. Enough for some luggage. & 4 passengers
Yeah, a bit tardis like. But even with a cargo net slung underneath, 4 tons is some pretty good lift.
sideranautae said:dragoner said:It was 4 tons:An air/raft can carry four persons plus four tons of cargo. MgT doesn't have any provisions for cargo in its list though.
It had a total bounded volume of 4 tons itself. When spec'ed it had hardly any cargo space. Enough for some luggage. & 4 passengers
See you are confusing mass with volume, it 4 metric tons of cargo not displacement tons...
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I thought the four tons volume includes some cramped overhead space within the vehicle bay.
Condottiere said:I thought the four tons volume includes some cramped overhead space within the vehicle bay.
There is generally considered to be some access space in the 4 dTons of volume an Air/Raft requires. But like the volume required for smallcraft in adventure class ships opinions vary.
sideranautae
Mongoose
Infojunky said:See you are confusing mass with volume, it 4 metric tons of cargo not displacement tons...
Nope. Not at all. The Air raft cannot carry 4 tons (weight) in cargo nor in volume. You are confused about its design specs. I NEVER get volume & weight confused. NEVER.
sideranautae said:Infojunky said:See you are confusing mass with volume, it 4 metric tons of cargo not displacement tons...
Nope. Not at all. The Air raft cannot carry 4 tons (weight) in cargo nor in volume. You are confused about its design specs. I NEVER get volume & weight confused. NEVER.
Ok, if you say so.... Just sayin I got several iterations of the Air/Raft that say the same thing that I was stating...
Now if you want we can to a in depth textual and pictorial analysis of the Air/Raft throughout the history of Traveller, I would bet that the smaller less robust version is probably more common in that many deck plans and drawing depict a smaller vehicle than the textual version.
sideranautae
Mongoose
Infojunky said:sideranautae said:Infojunky said:See you are confusing mass with volume, it 4 metric tons of cargo not displacement tons...
Nope. Not at all. The Air raft cannot carry 4 tons (weight) in cargo nor in volume. You are confused about its design specs. I NEVER get volume & weight confused. NEVER.
Ok, if you say so.... Just sayin I got several iterations of the Air/Raft that say the same thing that I was stating...
I've never seen, in any edition of Trav an Air Raft (as carried by a Type S) that has listed 4 tons (weight OR volume) of cargo space. If you have a reference (I don't have T5 or T4), I'd be glad to look at it.
sideranautae said:I've never seen, in any edition of Trav an Air Raft (as carried by a Type S) that has listed 4 tons (weight OR volume) of cargo space. If you have a reference (I don't have T5 or T4), I'd be glad to look at it.
CT Book 3 is the standard. Everything since is a variation from that.
Tom Kalbfus
Mongoose
Depends on what else the starship is to do. If it lands on planets, it may also need to be streamlined. Spheres and cylinders may not be the best shapes for operating within a planetary atmosphere.dragoner said:Shapes would be mostly spheres and cylinders based upon the needs of interior pressurization and structural integrity.
Tom Kalbfus said:Depends on what else the starship is to do. If it lands on planets, it may also need to be streamlined. Spheres and cylinders may not be the best shapes for operating within a planetary atmosphere.dragoner said:Shapes would be mostly spheres and cylinders based upon the needs of interior pressurization and structural integrity.
Airliners are cylinders with a nose cone and wings, not sure what shape you would call a B2, fighters are wedge shaped due to the need of a cross-sectional area for air-intakes, missiles are either "needle" or cylinder, which are both sort of the same shape. Ships landing without landers is questionable, if it would be reasonable, but the Free Trader is cheap enough I guess to do it.
sideranautae said:Missiles (when I used them) I had in a VLS set up. Totally different paradigm than a turret. They're guided so it is silly to put in a moving turret.
Depends how smart you see (a) the missile and (b) the launcher as being.
If the missile can manouvre out under low acceleration - either because it can vary acceleration, or by using a low-power 'launch motor', then orient itself to a pre-defined bearing and then kick into high gear, then the launcher itself can face in any direction. Cheap 'civilian' missiles might not, though, and if they come off the rails at full power*, bear in mind that a modern naval VLS system can never find itself pointed 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
By comparison, if the launcher itself provides some sort of 'heft' that gives an initial acceleration (I can definitely imagine this for a bay mount), that will need to be pointed the right way (although it may be easier to simply align the ship than to provide a powered mount for a 50+ dTon weapon).
* There's no Mongoose Traveller canonical description of the guts of a ship-to-ship missile that I know of. Maintaining 10G for 30 minutes with something that costs >Cr1,000 is impressive, and extreme performance and control are often mutually exclusive. Smart Missiles must be more controllable, since they can 'come back around for another try' if they miss.
sideranautae
Mongoose
locarno24 said:sideranautae said:Missiles (when I used them) I had in a VLS set up. Totally different paradigm than a turret. They're guided so it is silly to put in a moving turret.
Depends how smart you see (a) the missile and (b) the launcher as being.
If you are launching a missile against a highly maneuverable target 10,000 km away, if it isn't smart enough to come out of a VLS type of set up, it has no chance of hitting. PURELY axiomatic.
A
Anonymous
Guest
VLS is vertical launch system right?
In space there is no up, a ship in space is not limited in its orientation the way an ocean going ship is. If the angle of launch needs to be changed to best launch surely the ship will just rotate to that angle for the time it takes to launch?
In space there is no up, a ship in space is not limited in its orientation the way an ocean going ship is. If the angle of launch needs to be changed to best launch surely the ship will just rotate to that angle for the time it takes to launch?
sideranautae
Mongoose
hiro said:In space there is no up, a ship in space is not limited in its orientation the way an ocean going ship is. If the angle of launch needs to be changed to best launch surely the ship will just rotate to that angle for the time it takes to launch?
Yes. (Also, you are concentrating on the name rather than the configuration). But, there is no need even for that. The missiles would just be launched in any orientation and then directed towards the target. ALL Trav ship missiles are guided. None are aimed like a rifle. Thus, rotating missile turrets would be non-existent.
sideranautae
Mongoose
dragoner said:Mixed missile turret would still be a turret, CT had "racks" if a hard point is devoted to solely missiles, though in reality, probably disposable cassette launchers (w/onus of type limitations).
Of course as that is the available use for the hard point. But, in reality, I doubt that they would make mixed use turrets in the first place. I only have them as so many players are used to them. Not because they would exist.
