Increased tonnage plus expanded rules to articulate why. Then wait for the
hate mail.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Master Uxi
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> How do you think you would have handled that for final publication of RSG
> when it came to it? Rule change or new technology or increase tonnage?
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017, 22:05 David Nilsen
> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The other huge problem that I forgot to mention is the tonnage for
>> hangarage. The original LBB designs allowed small craft to be stored at
>> straight tonnage which was great for designers, but ludicrous logically.
>> Since X-boats are mostly spherical (light bulb shape), storing a spherical
>> shape inside of a rectangular shape is appallingly wasteful. No one really
>> wanted to deal with how much tonnage stored craft actually would require,
>> because it would blow the hell out of all existing designs.Travellerdom was
>> always divided into three groups: those who wanted perfect realism NOW,
>> those who wanted all of the existing data to remain true no matter what,
>> and those that wanted both at the same time.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Eamon Watters
>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yup, lots of changes needed between editions. Donosev* went from 400 dT
>>> to 600 dT. Thankfully, Annti Lahiten's spreadsheet allows for easier
>>> customization, so it's much easier to make those edition transitions.
>>>
>>> Another thing is that the underlying rationale behind ships can change:
>>> TNE has minimal power plant fuel requirements, but has reaction as well as
>>> jump fuel in the mix, so the fuel the tender uses burning to and from
>>> fuelling points is a factor in its primary mission. In my design I'm
>>> thinking collapsable fuel tanks will probably be a feature of the hangar.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> On Thu, 9/11/17, David Nilsen [Traveller_TNE] <
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Xboat Tender
>>> To:
>>> Date: Thursday, 9 November, 2017, 6:16
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was going to do an XBoat
>>> tender for the unfinished Regency Starship Guide, but
>>> don't know if I ever got to it. I remember that I did do
>>> a few variations on the Chrysanthemum and Fer-de-Lance
>>> escorts, but that's all I can remember right now.
>>>
>>> The thing to be aware of
>>> is that it was very difficult/impossible to reconstruct a
>>> lot of the cargo volumes of the LBB Traveller ships. A lot
>>> of them were done with constantly changing versions of the
>>> drive sizes that were changed throughout the LBB history
>>> without notification (or ret-conning). You'll be aware
>>> that the X-boat didn't have a power plant or something
>>> like that, which was hand-waved away from the very
>>> beginning. I think it was the Type R trader where I first
>>> discovered this, it had a large cargo volume that stuck in
>>> my head, something like 95 tons on a 200 ton hull, and when
>>> I tried to build a variant that's when I learned that
>>> the drive tables changed several times without warning.
>>>
>>
>>
>
hate mail.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Master Uxi
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> How do you think you would have handled that for final publication of RSG
> when it came to it? Rule change or new technology or increase tonnage?
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017, 22:05 David Nilsen
> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The other huge problem that I forgot to mention is the tonnage for
>> hangarage. The original LBB designs allowed small craft to be stored at
>> straight tonnage which was great for designers, but ludicrous logically.
>> Since X-boats are mostly spherical (light bulb shape), storing a spherical
>> shape inside of a rectangular shape is appallingly wasteful. No one really
>> wanted to deal with how much tonnage stored craft actually would require,
>> because it would blow the hell out of all existing designs.Travellerdom was
>> always divided into three groups: those who wanted perfect realism NOW,
>> those who wanted all of the existing data to remain true no matter what,
>> and those that wanted both at the same time.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Eamon Watters
>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yup, lots of changes needed between editions. Donosev* went from 400 dT
>>> to 600 dT. Thankfully, Annti Lahiten's spreadsheet allows for easier
>>> customization, so it's much easier to make those edition transitions.
>>>
>>> Another thing is that the underlying rationale behind ships can change:
>>> TNE has minimal power plant fuel requirements, but has reaction as well as
>>> jump fuel in the mix, so the fuel the tender uses burning to and from
>>> fuelling points is a factor in its primary mission. In my design I'm
>>> thinking collapsable fuel tanks will probably be a feature of the hangar.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> On Thu, 9/11/17, David Nilsen [Traveller_TNE] <
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Xboat Tender
>>> To:
>>> Date: Thursday, 9 November, 2017, 6:16
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was going to do an XBoat
>>> tender for the unfinished Regency Starship Guide, but
>>> don't know if I ever got to it. I remember that I did do
>>> a few variations on the Chrysanthemum and Fer-de-Lance
>>> escorts, but that's all I can remember right now.
>>>
>>> The thing to be aware of
>>> is that it was very difficult/impossible to reconstruct a
>>> lot of the cargo volumes of the LBB Traveller ships. A lot
>>> of them were done with constantly changing versions of the
>>> drive sizes that were changed throughout the LBB history
>>> without notification (or ret-conning). You'll be aware
>>> that the X-boat didn't have a power plant or something
>>> like that, which was hand-waved away from the very
>>> beginning. I think it was the Type R trader where I first
>>> discovered this, it had a large cargo volume that stuck in
>>> my head, something like 95 tons on a 200 ton hull, and when
>>> I tried to build a variant that's when I learned that
>>> the drive tables changed several times without warning.
>>>
>>
>>
>