Upgrading drives on exisiting ships

[AnotherDilbert]

Acceleration compensation is a separate system to the m drive and the grav plates.

OK, I simplified a bit. Given the link between M-drives and compensators in HG and the lack of any separate specification of compensators, I have always considered the compensators part of the M-drive tonnage and cost in CT.

I agree that they are a separate system in MT & TNE.

In T5:

Compensators. Integral to Maneuver Drives, Gravitic Drives, and Lifters are an inertial compensation component which counteracts the effects of acceleration on occupants of the ship.

That is why i specified "according to CT&T5".

Acceleration compensation has to mitigate extreme 'g' forces - a 6g m drive ship could be pulling 30+ 'g's as it manuvers during combat.

Compensators can only compensate limited linear acceleration as specified in TNE.

Rotational acceleration as the ship swings around its own centre is not considered in any edition that I know of.

 

[Old School]

I would be looking at actual deck plans to get a configuration for the replacement J-drive, not only requiring some random allocation of space. So you could get a very odd deck plan after making the new drive fit in the old deck plan.

I do agree that you have to make it fit in a way that makes sense, and how you make it fit should affect the total cost. For example, my travellers have recently acquired a pocket warship. They’d like to add some thrust, but this means at least 12tons of M-Drive plus additional 8 tons of power plant. Looking at the existing deckplan, there isn't really way to do that. The powerplant could be expanded into cargo space, but the m drives not so much. You could put both where the fuel in the back of deck 3 is now (and reallocate other space for addtional fuel),but that means two separate drive plants. There are deck plans that split engineering (the harrier comes to mind), but I dont think I’ll allow it as a retrofit.

 

[paltrysum]

Rotational acceleration as the ship swings around its own centre is not considered in any edition that I know of.

We just assume it's there and make no effort to illustrate its existence or location.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Rotational acceleration as the ship swings around its own centre is not considered in any edition that I know of.

We just assume it's there and make no effort to illustrate its existence or location.

OK, but I thought this was a bit excessive:

Acceleration compensation has to mitigate extreme 'g' forces - a 6g m drive ship could be pulling 30+ 'g's as it manuvers during combat.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Acceleration compensators are also installed and negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces while maneuvering.

Variations of this quote can be found throughout CT starship supplements/adventure details.
Furthermore:

A ship's passengers cannot normally tell whether they are moving through space or grounded on a planet surface unless they look at a viewscreen.

And finally this little tidbit:

Sections of the internal grav plates can be turned on or off, or even reversed, locally or by the computer. The negative grav field is used on the cargo deck to assist in loading and positioning cargo.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Acceleration compensators are also installed and negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces while maneuvering.

Variations of this quote can be found throughout CT starship supplements/adventure details.
Furthermore:

A ship's passengers cannot normally tell whether they are moving through space or grounded on a planet surface unless they look at a viewscreen.

Yes, this says that ships normally have Inertial Compensators, just as they normally have M-Drives?

And finally this little tidbit:

Sections of the internal grav plates can be turned on or off, or even reversed, locally or by the computer. The negative grav field is used on the cargo deck to assist in loading and positioning cargo.

Which does not have anything to do with Inertial Compensation?


Sorry, I don't understand what you want to demonstrate with these quotes.

 

[baithammer]

Easiest way to upgrade a component is using an advanced version that fits or close to fits in the dt left by the removal of the old equipment.

Armour would follow a similar pattern where the dt dedicated to armour would allow for moving to a different armour material, but that would still require engineering to ensure the upgrade doesn't interfere with the existing design.

Hull can't really be changed, so adding / removing hull options would be better handled by procuring a better hull.

 

[Condottiere]

Hull structural integrity would be an issue, if the MongoVerse imported Tee Five hull configuration limits.

As regards to inertial compensation, it's not relateable since it's not mentioned or scaled.