Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Sigtrygg]

And the average man can’t fit comfortable which is one of the most common problems with air travel, I’m 6’4” and I can not fly unless I buy at a minimum two seats. It’s a common requirement these days for a passenger to be forced to buy multiple seats because airline seats are no were near large enough. There are also studies that say modern airline seats are actually a hazard.

Shrinking Economy Airline Seats Are Dangerous for Passengers, According to an Aviation Expert

An expert's opinion on why tight seats are more than just uncomfortable—they're downright dangerous.

www.cntraveler.com

Using airline seating as a baseline is unrealistic at best.

They build for the average, not the outliers.

If they built with 6'4" as standard there would be an enormous amount of wasted space. There is a reason there is a height limit for fast jet pilots...
the average in the USA is 5'9", worldwide it is 5'8"

 

[Sigtrygg]

You have to agree what's common for both, and that it scales.

This.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You forgot about *teeth grit, ground down to stumps* spaceships dogfighting in six second rounds.

How can you forget something that doesn't exist?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Generally speaking artillery doesn’t do rapid fire they instead do burst fire. Fire a bunch of rounds then wait 5, 10, 30 minutes or longer before firing again. Also ship class weapons are vastly more powerful, the more powerful the higher energy required.

The modern self propelled stuff can fire several rounds timed to arrive at the same time, the SPG then gets out of dodge to avoid counter battery fire.

It may be very different when there is a lurking drone swarm that can target the self propelled gun faster than counter battery fire. The changing nature of the battlefield needs to be considered,

 

[Condottiere]

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.


Because, with attrition and lack of an industrial base, you might find yourself scraping the bottom of the barrel.


Next up, Sturmgeschutz in a hut.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

The rules have to be able to build the vehicles from TL0 to TL16+

Because, with attrition and lack of an industrial base, you might find yourself scraping the bottom of the barrel.

There comes a point where you have to consider surrender or total annihilation.

Next up, Sturmgeschutz in a hut.

The Stug was one of the best vehicles of WWII

 

[Condottiere]

Might get resurrected.

There doesn't seem much point in a turret, if it can't really traverse.

Short barrelled gun missile launcher.

Which is a thought for a hybrid mass driver/missile launcher.

 

[J. L. Brown]

[[[Box Text]]]

Spaceship-scale Power
A vehicle is assumed to have enough power available to operate its systems and manoeuvre at its maximum rated velocity. In most cases, this is a reasonable assumption, but when adding power-hungry spaceship-scale options, it may exceed its power rating. Many of these systems will not function without a fission, fusion, or Fusion+ system installed in the vehicle. A power point value per Space is associated with each of these power options. At the size required for regular operations, these power plants are scaled to fully support a vehicle’s non-spacecraft rated options and drive systems, but any options or weapons derived from the Traveller Core Rulebook or High Guard which require power points must have additional power available, or the vehicle’s performance will degrade.

A vehicle can fire spaceship-scale weapons and operate spacecraft-scale systems normally if they require less than 10% of the vehicle’s total PP. If the weapon requires more, it must reduce its Maximum Speed Band by 1 for every full 10% and may need to be stationary in order to fire more power-hungry weapons. If the weapons require more than 100%, they cannot be fired at all. To support additional power, the vehicle can install more Spaces of its primary power system.

[[[End Box]]]

Then this seems to work for power points per Space... might need tweaking
View attachment 2337
Probably going to change 'Fusion Plus' to 'Fusion+' so it doesn't sound like underwear for those who are experiencing higher values of BMI, but even though the Zhunastu dynasty tech was pulled almost directly from T4 FFS, it is not exactly lining up with costs for starship grade power plants, hence the lower power numbers. It fixes most of the vehicle range numbers*, though (preview should be in a JTAS article). All of the power systems need work, but this glue should hold for a bit.

(Yes, I know, covering the scar with plastic surgery, not fixing the malfunctioning body part below, but the real question for the 95% out there is: can this work in the game without getting a headache. The 5% will have to take my apology and do with it as they please.)

*This entire thing started because I could not make the hovercraft in Sky Raiders have enough range. And then I kept screwing up vehicle design in general and failed once again to make a functional spreadsheet for it. One thing led to another and then I bounced the Vehicle Handbook off a wall and pretty much begged to be allowed to update it.

You already seem to be quite close to what I am asking for anyway; I do not understand why you are holding on to exactly the aspects of the old Vehicles Handbook which are the root of your frustrations.

Every space dedicated to powerplant produces some number of Vehicle-scale power points; each of which requires some amount of fuel. The very logical next step is 'all systems (including drives) may require power'. Assign power costs and be done with it. Of course, at 'two spaces per shipping ton' no vehicle will ever have enough space for anything useful -- so just set 'spaces per dTon' at a constant and reasonable (which also works with Vehicle-scale Structures) level, and discard the silly & unhelpful 'shipping tonnage' crud.

It is like I am watching Leonardo da Vinci trying to correct the perspective in a kindergartner's hasty fingerpainting. Or a similar mastercrftsman, inlaying delicate precious metals onto a carelessly thrown together paper mache sculpture; 'I need the molten gold to flow to fill in the gaps, but the damn thing catches on fire wherever the gold touches it!'. The 'chassis' system; the hidden assumptions about everthing in the drivetrain; the hidden assumptions in the so-called 'shipping tonnage'; the bizarrely inconsistent 'spaces per dTon' -- these things are all garbage, other people have already decided to throw them away. Do not try to build on top of them; they are an active hinderance.

Design the Vehicle Handbook Update as if your first look at any Mongoose Traveller was the 2e Core rules, High Guard Update, and the Robots Update. Imagine what would have been the result if someone handed you those books and requested 'please create a design system for Vehicle-scale stuff to fit between these'.

 

[Sigtrygg]

VLS cells for AGM 114, FGM-148s, and/or Stinger missiles fitted in lieu of infantry in an IFV chassis...

 

[tytalan]

They build for the average, not the outliers.

If they built with 6'4" as standard there would be an enormous amount of wasted space. There is a reason there is a height limit for fast jet pilots...
the average in the USA is 5'9", worldwide it is 5'8"

Did you bother to check the link or just posted your opinion? And the 5’9” is way out of date.

 

[tytalan]

The modern self propelled stuff can fire several rounds timed to arrive at the same time, the SPG then gets out of dodge to avoid counter battery fire.

It may be very different when there is a lurking drone swarm that can target the self propelled gun faster than counter battery fire. The changing nature of the battlefield needs to be considered,

You just described what I stated

 

[Sigtrygg]

Did you bother to check the link or just posted your opinion? And the 5’9” is way out of date.

Yes I read the link, I don't doubt they have been making seats as small as they can get away with, it is how they make money.
On to average height. No, it isn't old data it is fresh off the interwebs.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You just described what I stated

I am agreeing with you and posting extra detail - you didn't mention shoot and scoot, nor did you postulate an enemy positioning a drobe swarm for counter battery fire.

 

[tytalan]

Yes I read the link, I don't doubt they have been making seats as small as they can get away with, it is how they make money.
On to average height. No, it isn't old data it is fresh off the interwebs.

You apparently missed the fact that it’s unsafe and that they will soon be required to change this. As for the average height that a misleading statistic because an average is just that an average it can be misleading because it’s extremely affected by outliers. It’s also affected by generations as better diets become more available around the world the average hight is increasing. Your argument is that vehicles should literally be built to minimize room per person to the point it’s unsafe because it’s possible to stuff them in. This is unrealistic to say the least it also ignores the fact that there’s more space to seating than just the space given to the individual themselves.

 

[tytalan]

They build for the average, not the outliers.

If they built with 6'4" as standard there would be an enormous amount of wasted space. There is a reason there is a height limit for fast jet pilots...
the average in the USA is 5'9", worldwide it is 5'8"

Actually the minimum for a US fighter jet pilot is 5’ 4” the maximum is 6’5” according to the US Airforce. Which gives room for 90% of the male population.

 

[Condottiere]

I'd worry more about width, rather than height.

On the average, I think's it's the Dutch who have a heads up, and that seems to be attributed to post war nutrition.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You apparently missed the fact that it’s unsafe and that they will soon be required to change this. As for the average height that a misleading statistic because an average is just that an average it can be misleading because it’s extremely affected by outliers. It’s also affected by generations as better diets become more available around the world the average hight is increasing. Your argument is that vehicles should literally be built to minimize room per person to the point it’s unsafe because it’s possible to stuff them in. This is unrealistic to say the least it also ignores the fact that there’s more space to seating than just the space given to the individual themselves.

No, I didn't miss anything. They may be required to change it, but it will be the minimum change they can get away with, Like it or not at 6'4" you are way beyond the mean, almost three standard deviations from it. You do know how statistics work yes? The figures I quoted are current as for yesterday.
No, my argument is that vehicles should be constructed with the minimum amount of crew space to get the job done, as happens in the real world. Advances in ergonomics have really helped give crew more room. The space allocated refers to the bounding box that allows action, not just stuffing them in a coffin.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That throwaway coffin comment got me thinking - what if the operator is in a "coffin"
with neuralink to control the vehicle...

 

[Sigtrygg]

Actually the minimum for a US fighter jet pilot is 5’ 4” the maximum is 6’5” according to the US Airforce. Which gives room for 90% of the male population.

Well I never, I remember years ago the RAF had a height limit, just shows my age

Thanks for making me look it up

 

[phavoc]

They build for the average, not the outliers.

If they built with 6'4" as standard there would be an enormous amount of wasted space. There is a reason there is a height limit for fast jet pilots...
the average in the USA is 5'9", worldwide it is 5'8"

The "average" American that airline seats were built for is/was based on the averages from the 1960s.

This is something that many industries have declined to adjust to fit the latest because they actually haven't been forced to do anything. Americans (and others around the world, but these standards were developed by/for Americans) have gotten bigger and heavier. In the 1960s the average weight for an American male was ~166lbs, and today it's considered to be ~199. Height-wise it's grown about an inch.

For cockpits of a spacecraft I'd expect them to be even roomier than today in order to accommodate space-rated flight gear (i.e. a spacesuit). I don't see spacesuits as bulky as today's units, but certainly more bulky than standard flight gear of today (not to mention needing the necessary equipment to survive in a vacuum for 24-48hrs if you have to eject).

I think, for the most part, it's a moot point since we don't get to that level of detail. I'd say it's only an issue if your PC is ginormous, or tiny, and then you can bring that into question on whether or not they would fit into the cockpit. Could be a further moot point if they don't need to be able to reach their feet down for space-based rudder petals. Who knows if they would have a flight yoke, a side-mounted joystick or a center-mounted one between the legs? It's questionable whether or not small-craft pilots would even feel g-forces since intertial compensators and grav technology is available, so controls could even be a panel (aka ST shuttle controls).