The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Starship Factory Upgrades
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Starship Factory Upgrades Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
I don't think that analogy fits what is happening in this instance.

Besides, you are assuming WEG meant this as a fact-based answer. Bigger engines taking up cargo space is a standard WEG answer to a complicated issue. To simplify they are taking away an important commodity to a freighter to ensure that you don't add too much stuff.

If you used the better engine = cargo space rule for starfighters how would you increase their engines? Is a Z-95 stuck being slow because of this rule?


I offer a quote from WEG in support of my position:

"It is possible to remove the back-up hyperdrive from a space transport and sell it, thereby gaining additional cargo capacity and a bit of extra cash (however, any hyperdrive with a multiplier of x5 or more isn't worth that much). Of course, the passengers and crew of the freighter are in a very bad situation if the main drive conks out in transit..."

-Galaxy Guide 6, page 39, column1, Section: Replacement Hyperdrives, paragraph 3. WEG-

With that statement, WEG recognized that removing a piece of equipment freed up internal space; they simply chose not to pursue it on a broader scope with regards to its implication on other ship systems. This rule should apply to all of a space transport's internal equipment to one degree or another. Either that, or we should really explore the transitive nature of starship engineering in the SWU, in that solid matter continues to occupy a space from which it has been removed, unless said solid matter is manufactured in the form and function of a backup hyperdrive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
I don't think that analogy fits what is happening in this instance.

Besides, you are assuming WEG meant this as a fact-based answer. Bigger engines taking up cargo space is a standard WEG answer to a complicated issue. To simplify they are taking away an important commodity to a freighter to ensure that you don't add too much stuff.

If you used the better engine = cargo space rule for starfighters how would you increase their engines? Is a Z-95 stuck being slow because of this rule?


WEG simply assumes that all engines in a light freighter are installed within the hull (even if that is not the case in several drawings). In that case the Z-95 is 'stuck' being slow.

As allready pointed out, the GG6 rules are scetchy to say the least. They are not meant to cover ship designing in general but should be seen as a 'quick and dirty' way of giving players the option of modifying their ships. They simply dodges the bullet on the consistency mess that is SW starships.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is true..

As for making ships.. there is a doc i have which i got from my time in london from a fellow SW gamer (magusinvictus iirc) which had good rules for constructing a ship from the ground up....
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
jmanski wrote:
I don't think that analogy fits what is happening in this instance.

Besides, you are assuming WEG meant this as a fact-based answer. Bigger engines taking up cargo space is a standard WEG answer to a complicated issue. To simplify they are taking away an important commodity to a freighter to ensure that you don't add too much stuff.

If you used the better engine = cargo space rule for starfighters how would you increase their engines? Is a Z-95 stuck being slow because of this rule?


I think the rules in GG6 were specifically designed for Space Transports, and rules for upgrading other vehicles would need to be covered by an alternate set of rules. Perhaps starfighters are only possible to upgrade via modification, or the introduction of improvements from the manufacturing company's R&D department.

Besides, by WEG's rules in GG6, if you have, say, a SoroSuub Nella 342 Light Freighter with a Space of 4 and a Cargo Capacity of 50 metric tons, and you buy the SoroSuub Boav Ion Drive for aftermarket installation in your freighter, you are essentially losing 10 metric tons for no gain in performance whatsoever.

Let's take the ridiculousness a little further. Let's say you have a SoroSuub Jermaguim-Class Light Freighter with a Space of 6 and a Cargo Capacity of 85 metric tons. Installing the same drive cuts your speed by 1/3, and still costs you 10 metric tons.

It's a simple fact. If you have a container with a limited volume, and that volume is already partially filled, you have a limited amount of space available to put other things in. Now, if you remove something from the original used volume, this creates more usable volume. Unless you are planning to keep the original engine, removing said engine frees up some internal volume. Period. Now, internal volume is a rather nebulous currency, and WEG has always shown a tendency to play fast and loose with numbers, so they used the most readily available number they had: cargo capacity. But the numbers have to cut both ways: if you put something in, you lose internal volume. If you take something out, on the other hand, you gain internal volume. WEG seems to have ignored that possibility.

It wouldn't even be limited just to engines, either. Any sort of equipment removed leaves an empty space behind that can be used for something else. A freighter captain in the well-protected and relatively crime-free Core Worlds might be tempted to dump his shield generators to pick up some extra cargo. By your way of thinking, he wouldn't gain any cargo space if he pulled the shield generator, but he would lose 6 tons of cargo capacity by installing a 1D replacement just to get him back to stock (GG6 page 40). GG6 specifically states that cargo space can be used for passenger transport if the space is properly converted. By that standard, a freighter captain could reverse the formula and convert all of his passenger cabins into cargo holds and gain more cargo capacity that way.

Here's a more appropriate example. My dad inherited a Mustang from my grandfather, his dad. It had a V6 engine in it. My dad decided to fix the car up and put a 351 V8 in it. To put that engine in, he had to remove the V6. Once the V6 was out, he was left with an empty engine compartment. Now, that empty engine compartment has a lot of wide open space for things (translation: Cargo Capacity), but unless he wants to convert the muscle car into a giant flower pot for my mom, he needs to put another engine in there. Luckily, he has the 351 V8, which he installs post-haste. The V8 is a bigger engine, and takes up more room, and weighs more. Fortunately, however, my father removed the original engine so that he had the extra space available to put the aftermarket engine in. Luckily, he doesn't have to worry about lugging around the weight of that redundant V6 engine just because Ford Motor Company forgot to include the exact weight of the stock V6 in the owner's manual.

I think we can all agree that WEG didn't get everything right. I'm sure we can all point to at least one example in the WEG material where they got something wrong (the actual size of the Executor comes to mind). It's a fallacy to assume that this is the way things are just because WEG said so.


Sure, there's room around the engine, but that room is NOT cargo space. You can't store anything there realistically. That space is designed for engine.

How about this: there has to be some downside to adding more engine. Something has to give. In your Mustang example the car is now faster but has shorter range due to fuel consumption. You can't add something without giving something up.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
Sure, there's room around the engine, but that room is NOT cargo space. You can't store anything there realistically. That space is designed for engine.

How about this: there has to be some downside to adding more engine. Something has to give. In your Mustang example the car is now faster but has shorter range due to fuel consumption. You can't add something without giving something up.


So, by your argument, a space transport with an aftermarket engine wouldn't lose any cargo space at all, because the space that was designed for engine wasn't intended for cargo space?

I completely agree with you on the fuel consumption idea. The problem is that WEG never bothered with fuel consumption rules, beyond the vague standard restocking fee mentioned on page 30-31 of GG6. If someone could come up with a fuel system that didn't involve a lot of number crunching and detracting from gameplay, I would be willing to use it, and I would be more than willing to apply it to starship mods, but I haven't seen one that passes muster yet.

Here's a thought. What if cargo capacity is actually a function of mass, not volume? In the Han Solo novels, Brian Daley made reference to having an obscenely high lift-mass ratio. Since mass is an expression of acceleration and the degree to which an object is affected by a gravity field, perhaps the Cargo Capacity measurement in metric tons is actually a measurement of how much extra mass the ship can carry, as opposed to volume? If an aftermarket engine takes up more mass than a stock engine, the cargo space and engine room space wouldn't need to be coterminous to make more room.

Of course, this would also mean that a ship could purchase more lift-mass capability without necessarily increasing the ship's internal volume. Vicious circle, really.

BTW, has anyone ever bothered with rules for how fast a starship can travel when fully loaded? If Cargo Capacity is a measurement of mass, then perhaps the ship's cargo capacity is a measurement of how much the vessel can carry before the cargo begins to affect performance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hadn't thought about cargo space as mass. That does make more sense.

And top speed loaded is an interesting idea... does the ship go slower or just accelerate more slowly?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
I hadn't thought about cargo space as mass. That does make more sense.

And top speed loaded is an interesting idea... does the ship go slower or just accelerate more slowly?


I'm not sure, really. I read an article somewhere about how a ship's Space rating is actually a measurement of acceleration, not overall top speed, which is much more realistic with regard to real life physics, if you think about it. After all, a ship hovering in space may still be moving at thousands of kilometers per hour relative to a planetary surface. If that ship goes to full throttle from a dead stop, then the top speed is really a rating of how fast it's are accelerating away from the starting point. If it cuts thrust, then it is still moving away at the same velocity, but not accelerating.

I think the best fit for the rules as written would be that the cargo capacity is a function of the ship's artificial gravity combined with the engine's thrust output. Specifically, the ship's artificial gravity and acceleration compensator can compensate for an additional amount of mass up to a point, and that point is indicated by the cargo capacity. You can carry up to the maximum amount allowed, but if you go over, your acceleration compensator can't keep up, and the added mass starts to affect your acceleration and performance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That sounds simple enough. So adding "cargo space" could be done, in theory, by adding thrust, compensators, and gravity.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
That sounds simple enough. So adding "cargo space" could be done, in theory, by adding thrust, compensators, and gravity.


Well, I think we should stick to Cargo Capacity to avoid confusion. There would need to be some sort of cap on how far up you could go. a good real world example would be the various sizes of full-size truck here in the US. The different numbers (F150-F350 and up, for example) are primarily indicators of how much weight the rear suspension is designed to support. You can overload the truck, of course, but the back end will begin to sag, and the handling will drop off, plus you begin to run the danger of long-term damage to your suspension.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So hows about a hull rating links in some way to a MAX speed the ship can do without shaking apart.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
That sounds simple enough. So adding "cargo space" could be done, in theory, by adding thrust, compensators, and gravity.


In 1st ed GG6 they differ between mass and space. A 100 ton cargo space typically has 40 cubic meters of cargo space. Adding thrust would then add the mass, but not the volume.

The ships total mass compared to engine thrust should determine the speed. If you fill up your 40m3 cargo space with metals your performance will suffer (or you might not even get off the ground).
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant to say that one shouldn't be able to increase cargo capacity without increasing thrust etc.

If I could get my point across you'd understand me.... Laughing
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
So hows about a hull rating links in some way to a MAX speed the ship can do without shaking apart.


I think that would only apply in situations where you are specifically increasing the ship's armor, and nothing else. I've always maintained that the Hull rating isn't just armor, it's a system wide increase of the ship's ability to resist damage of all types, and that resistance can take on multiple forms. If we are linking a ship's cargo capacity to its lift-mass ratio, there are things that can be done to increase the hull strength without adding appreciably to the mass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD wrote:
In 1st ed GG6 they differ between mass and space. A 100 ton cargo space typically has 40 cubic meters of cargo space. Adding thrust would then add the mass, but not the volume.

The ships total mass compared to engine thrust should determine the speed. If you fill up your 40m3 cargo space with metals your performance will suffer (or you might not even get off the ground).


Exactly, because 40 cubic meters of metal probably masses a whole lot more than other things that might fill the same volume. Of course, I'm a little unsure on my physics knowledge here on the relationship between mass and weight. Any physics majors out there want to step up to the plate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
I meant to say that one shouldn't be able to increase cargo capacity without increasing thrust etc.

If I could get my point across you'd understand me.... Laughing


The way I'm seeing it in my head, the key to increasing Cargo Capacity would be in boosting the power of the ship's artificial gravity and/or acceleration compensators, not necessarily the thrust. If the gravity systems on the ship are being used to neutralize mass to maintain the ship's performance, then increasing that mass capacity would require a more powerful acceleration compensator, which would in turn require more power output from the ship's reactor, which might cut into thrust indirectly. However, if you could boost output from the reactor, enough to meet all the demands being placed on it with the upgrades, you could increase cargo capacity without cutting into thrust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0