Sanity check Civilian vehicles

[DFW]

Air/Raft listed as having a volume 8 M3. That equals .59 "tons". "calculate
displacement as 1 dTon for every 10 M3 of internal volume the
vehicle has."

So, an Air Raft takes up slight less than a Ton now?

 

[rust]

Don't start me on this, I could write a trilogy about the bugs of the vehicle
design system ... :lol:

 

[DFW]

Don't start me on this, I could write a trilogy about the bugs of the vehicle
design system ... :lol:

It's not a bug, it's a feature. Think of how many air/rafts I can now carry in the cargo hold when engaging in spec trading!

Okay, I read it correctly. Went over it 4 times as I thought I was misreading.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Here's a question for Rust:

Problem: Sloped armor takes up so much space that it's bonus is circumvented by instead using the lost space for increased armor. (Page 6) Remove Super Sloped leaving only Sloped as an option. Remove the Armor x1.1 Effect to be replaced by Armor mass 0.75. The volume penalty of 0.9 remains. This results in armor of less mass giving the same protection if sloped while taking up some extra space. Armor in the vehicle design system doesn't take up much space, but it's mass is significant. Armor is more limited by mass then volume. Sloped armor allows a better performing vehicle by reducing the overall vehicle weight. Yes you could pump more armor into that lost 10%, but it's mass, not volume, that seems to limit armor more.

That works for added armour, but would you keep the initial hull weight at 100%, or reduce it? Using the 0.75 multiplier seems a tad extreme for the basic hull.

I do think you're right as regards most of your errata.

Second question:

Multiple propulsion systems (specifically Gasbag and Lifter) that don't provide propulsion. Would you use a percentage division of volume, mass and cost, if say there was a 60/40% split? That's what seems logical to me anyway.

 

[rust]

Problem: Sloped armor takes up so much space that it's bonus is circumvented by instead using the lost space for increased armor. (Page 6) Remove Super Sloped leaving only Sloped as an option. Remove the Armor x1.1 Effect to be replaced by Armor mass 0.75. The volume penalty of 0.9 remains.

That works for added armour, but would you keep the initial hull weight at 100%, or reduce it? Using the 0.75 multiplier seems a tad extreme for the basic hull.

This would be a question for the author of the proposed change, I am not
sure that I do fully understand what he was aiming at.
In my view the mass of the initial hull should not change, only the mass of
any armour added to it.

Multiple propulsion systems (specifically Gasbag and Lifter) that don't provide propulsion. Would you use a percentage division of volume, mass and cost, if say there was a 60/40% split? That's what seems logical to me anyway.

You are thinking of a vehicle that has both a gasbag and a lifter, with the
gasbag providing 60 % of the lift and the lifter the remaining 40 % ?

If so, in my view the gasbag should have 60 % of the volume/mass/cost
of a gasbag that would provide 100 % of the lift, and the lifter 40 % of the
volume/mass/cost of a lifter that would provide 100 % of the lift.

 

[far-trader]

Air/Raft listed as having a volume 8 M3. That equals .59 "tons". "calculate
displacement as 1 dTon for every 10 M3 of internal volume the
vehicle has."

So, an Air Raft takes up slight less than a Ton now?

Maybe it's an inflatable and that's it's stored volume Pull cord to activate inflation canister.

 

[DFW]

Air/Raft listed as having a volume 8 M3. That equals .59 "tons". "calculate
displacement as 1 dTon for every 10 M3 of internal volume the
vehicle has."

So, an Air Raft takes up slight less than a Ton now?

Maybe it's an inflatable and that's it's stored volume Pull cord to activate inflation canister.

LOL! Or, remember the design of the folding lunar rover?

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

There was in the proposed errata (that I think I mistook Rust as being the author of... sorry all connected people) a possible sorting out of hangars, and the space necessary for housing vehicles:

Problem: Hangar space seems to be off when compared to some other versions of Traveller. (Page XX)
Add several options for hangars of varying sizes. When figuring the volume of a carried vehicle, first multiply m3 by 1.35 (this allows for 10 m3 = 1 d-ton as stated on page 4).

Form Fitting: x1 m3. No repairs possible. 3 minutes to launch.
Minimal Hangar: x2 m3. 1 minute to launch.
Spacious Hanger: x4 m3. 1 round to launch.
Launch Tube: x25 m3. Launch 10 vehicles per round.

If an air-raft had a spacious hangar, it would be getting closer to the CT space required.

 

[AndrewW]

It's an air/raft in a box. Turn the handle and out it pops.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Like a sausage-factory.

 

[BP]

It's an air/raft in a box. Turn the handle and out it pops.

The image I got when I read the first post :lol:

Sorta like with many 'design' systems trying to hard
- Turn pages and break prior designs

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Don't start me on this, I could write a trilogy about the bugs of the vehicle
design system ... :lol:

Agreed. I bought both civ and mil vehicles (MonT) at the same time, might as well have saved the money of at least one. After about 20 minutes gave up on the system and went back to handwavium. Some interesting ideas about what the designers thought high tech vehicles would look like/do, but otherwise I wasn't impressed.

Egil

 

[far-trader]

Air/Raft listed as having a volume 8 M3. That equals .59 "tons". "calculate
displacement as 1 dTon for every 10 M3 of internal volume the
vehicle has."

So, an Air Raft takes up slight less than a Ton now?

Maybe it's an inflatable and that's it's stored volume Pull cord to activate inflation canister.

LOL! Or, remember the design of the folding lunar rover?

That is an excellent idea! I went for funny and you nailed the practical. I like it.

 

[rust]

After about 20 minutes gave up on the system and went back to handwavium.

You were either more clever or more lucky than I was. I trusted the sys-
tem blindly, and merrily designed what I considered the perfect vehicle
for my setting. Then I presented it proudly to someone else, who took
the design apart within seconds and pointed out a number of truly em-
barrasing bugs of the system. I felt more than a little stupid - and the al-
most irresistable urge to burn the supplement with a plasma gun. :evil:

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

You know you are going to have to share your findings at some time... best get it off your chest!

Actually that would be most helpful.

 

[rust]

You know you are going to have to share your findings at some time...

I have already done so, repeatedly and in different threads, so I probably
should get over it, forget the vehicle design system and move on ... :lol:

[However, it is hard for someone as obsessed with water world settings
as I am to forgive that this system produces submarines that cannot dive
because their mass is lower than their displacement ... :roll: ]

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Yes, it is obviously silly.

Obviously buoyancy tanks could be added... did you have any thought on those? Other than that, it's lead weights I suppose.

 

[rust]

Obviously buoyancy tanks could be added... did you have any thought on those?

Not really, because I had plausibility problems with other parts of the de-
sign system, too, and so instead of tinkering with it I went back to GURPS
rules (e.g. those in Transhuman Space - Under Pressure) for my vehicles.
They need a lot more effort (I am not a friend of formulas with cubic roots
staring at me ...), but the results are as realistic as a roleplaying game
can get.

 

[far-trader]

An air/raft was always less than a dton.

Umm, no? It's 4tons in the core book. And that 4tons is described as:

"The tonnage and cost covers minimal hangar space,
indicating the vehicle is either carried on the outer hull or in a formfi
tting compartment on board. For ease of access and for storage
of spare parts and equipment, many ships will allocate more
space to some vehicles." (Vehicles and Drones, page 110)