Well listies here's my first post to new list (mmm the new list smell).
What (if anything) do you all think of the 1/300 scale DS2 resin
starships
(see 'dem at: http://www.geohex.com/micro01.htm) Specifically, I'm
painting
up a bunch of 'Tramp' class freighters (MT-14 no pics on Geohex's site)
and
some Scout/couriers (MT-27 pics available) along with a 'platoon
lander', a system defense boat, and the giganto Superheavy assault lander
(MT-15,17,
and 28 respectively (all have pics on the 'site)). So the questions are: are
there any FT sized models of these puppies (my research indicates no). The
only 1/300 scale ship from the microtac line I don't own is the MT-18
"Apache" (no pics) so I can't say if that's supposed to look like the NAC's
"Arapaho" class Corvette or not. Anyway I think that maybe the big ol assault
lander is supposed to be the 120 mass Assault Transport described on pp42 of
yon Fleet Book, at least I Hope it is, 'cause it would make things nice and
simple. Maybe it's the NAC "Galahad" Class?
Any Ideas? Senor Tuffley? Are you here? KR? Are you here? Everyone else?
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
it feels weird. and some weird stuff is happening with double-quoting of
the address in my mailer... <crosses fingers>
> some Scout/couriers (MT-27 pics available)
looks similar to the Tholians from a paleolithic star trek episode.
> The
well, given that it costs the same as a platoon-size lander (6.50), i
would guess that it is not supposed to be a proper navy frigate. mind you, the
system defence gunboat is only 4.50, so that must be blinking tiny
...
> Anyway I think that maybe the big ol
if 1 mass is 100 tonnes (is that right?), then mass 120 is 12 000 tonnes.
figuring that a motor car is (for the sake of argument) 1 tonne, that's 12 000
times more massive, probably 12 000 times larger in volume, so
(12000)^(1/3) = 23 times longer. looking at the picture, this could
actually be right. i feel starships - especially those of mass 100 -
should be much, much bigger, but then i always used to rate 1 mass at 1000
tonnes (until i read honor harrington and changed it to 100 000...).
Tom
> ----------
Good luck to us all.
> looks similar to the Tholians from a paleolithic star trek episode.
More like a thickened Type-S from Traveller, but I see what you mean.
> well, given that it costs the same as a platoon-size lander (6.50), i
Hmm... I hdn't thought about using a real price/ to size comparison. The
SDB
is maybe 25mm by 75mm-ish, smaller than the Platoon Boat, maybe about
the
same general mass as the scout and 3/4 the mass of the Platoon Boat. I
would estimate there are about 8 total PBE (platoon boat equivalents) of
volume in the big lander. The 'Tramp' class freighter is probably about 25mm
thick and
maybe 60mm square in a generally millenium-falcony shape. I'd call it 1
and a half PBEs
> if 1 mass is 100 tonnes (is that right?), then mass 120 is 12 000
Yeah, I've yet to come up with a number that satisfies me as regards shipp
tonnages, but I'm also inclined towards bigness, precluding any PSB
matter-energy-matter conversion with a modicum of efficiency.
Well, if there are eight or so PBE in the Big Lander (8 PBE = 1 BLE?) and the
BLE is 120 mass then the PBL (and Arapaho?) should mass out at about 15 Ms
(sounds good (even the Arapaho seems right compared to other Frigates)) the
Scout and System Defense Boat should weigh in at around 10 ms each (too small
for a useful SDB, but sounds fine for the scoutship, even a little big
compared to the FB's major designs. This puts the 'Tramp' at Ms 22 (2 Ms
larger than the FB's 'Free Trader' design and well within my tolerances for
errors).
Make sense?
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
mind you,
> > the system defence gunboat is only 4.50, so that must be blinking
> Hmm... I hdn't thought about using a real price/ to size comparison.
i assume that the price reflects the quantity of resin used; of course, if it
is a tricky mould then you have to factor in extra labour, greater wastage,
etc. generally, price is proportional to mass. this leads to an interesting
result: the mass of the model corresponds to the mass of the ship you are
modelling (it's a scale model, after all); the points value of a ship under FB
rules is basically proportional to its game mass. does this mean that the
points value of a ship is proportional to its cost? rather than playing a 4000
point fleet, a could field a 25 pound one, or an 800 gram one. does this mean
that when the FB rules for the KV come out, and KV warships are (say) 50% more
expensive, the models will have a premium too? gzg could be the first company
to make their models not just scale models dimensionwise but pricewise too: a
5 pound battleship model
is a 5 million pound battleship...
> > i always used to rate 1 mass at 1000
> Yeah, I've yet to come up with a number that satisfies me as regards
the logic behind 1m = 1000T was that then a mass 40 battleship (as they
roughly were under ft2) was 40 000 tonnes, which is the size of a real
wet-navy battleship. i just thought along the Space Cruiser Yamato
lines, i suppose.
Tom
> i assume that the price reflects the quantity of resin used; of
does
> this mean that the points value of a ship is proportional to its cost?
The only place this breaks down with regards to the Microtac line of resins
is that IIRC the MT-26 GEV Bulk carier comes 1 to a packet and is also
$4.50. It is maybe one fifth of a PBE in terms of resin volume. So figure,
what, Ms 2 or 3 maximum. The same goes for the GEV command post, which is even
smaller.
> the logic behind 1m = 1000T was that then a mass 40 battleship (as
Makes sense. I guess it all depends on your view of technology and your
tolerance for PSB. I guess I like the 1m = 1000, at least for now, making a
mass 120 ship weigh in at 120,000 tons, about the size of a decent Oil Tanker.
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
i suppose; nimitz-type carriers are roughly 90 000 tonnes, so 90 mass,
just within ft2 limits, and the largest tanker, the jahre viking, is 575
000 tonnes, of mass 575. mind you, that is a pretty exceptional ship -
there are probably one or two mass 600 frighters plying the void, owned by
a state-owned line (ESU, FSE), state-supported lines (NSL) or supported
via huge tax breaks (NAC). as well as prestige value, they would be useful
for colonisation - you could fit a whole colonisation mission into one
ship.
Tom
> i suppose; nimitz-type carriers are roughly 90 000 tonnes, so 90 mass,
So 1 Mass in FT2 is the equivalent of around 2 Mass in the FTFB. Making the
"Space Nimitz" 180 Ms (and 180,000 dwt) double the size of it's ocean going
counterpart seems right to me for stores/ life support etc. Egad, the
"Space Jahre Viking" is Ms 1150... You're right, there probably ain't very
many of those beasties flying around.
The fun bit is, I measured all of the resins and if the Ms 120 Assault Lander
is 8"x2"x1.75" or 28 cubic inches of resin, then the "Space Jahre Viking" on
the DS2 scale would top 250 cubic inches of resin (assuming it's solid)!!
Measure about, say, six feet by 2 feet by a foot. Yikes!
> At 01:10 PM 11/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
I've seen that figure quoted a couple of times now. Is that fully loaded or
empty?
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Jeff Lyon wrote:
by me both times i think; it really does strike me as funny that anyone could
possibly imagine building something so big in the first place. i sort of
imagine these norwegian shipping execs sitting down and saying "you know, what
we really need is a *really* big tanker to scare the
swedes ...".
> Is that fully loaded
a brief look at the web says 564 763 deadweight tons. deadweight means fully
loaded. 69 metres wide, 458 metres long (77 m longer than the empire state
buliding is high). for the authoritative answer, someone should consult
Lloyd's Register of Shipping; i happen to have left mine at home
:-).
http://www.intertanko.com/tanker_facts/biggest.htm
Tom
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
now THAT's what i call a starship!
Tom
> now THAT's what i call a starship!
That also means that the Empire State building would be about 5'8" tall in
1/300
http://www.sea-man.com/terms.html for definitions of naval terms...
Deadweight Tonnage:
DEADWEIGHT/DWAT/DWCC- A common measure of ship carrying capacity. The
number of tons (2240 lbs.) of cargo, stores and bunkers that a vessel can
transport. It is the difference between the number of tons of water a vessel
displaces "light" and the number of tons it displaces "when submerged to the
'deep load line'." A vessel's cargo capacity is less than its total deadweight
tonnage. The difference in weight between a vessel when it is fully loaded and
when it is empty (in general transportation terms, the net) measured by the
water it displaces. This is the most common, and useful, measurement for
shipping as it measures cargo capacity.
> ----------
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
handy to know. now we just wait for www.space-man.com ...
> DEADWEIGHT/DWAT/DWCC- A common measure of ship carrying capacity. The
oops! minor braino. total loaded displacement is gross, as in gross registered
tons (grt), right? displacement without cargo, stores and
bunker (aka fuel) is net, so dead = gross - net.
it follows that net = gross - dead; i'm sure there's an internet joke in
there somewhere...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
tall in
> 1/300
and, conversely, that i would be 513 metres tall... godzilla scenario, anyone?
Tom
> Jeff Lyon wrote:
Well, it looks like it is time to say some thing I believe. I may be incorrect
in this and I am certain that corrections will be forthcoming if I am wrong!
It is my understanding that the number of tons quoted is the cargo carry
capacity of the ship, not the displacement.
Bye for now
Ack! Now I'm confused again.
DWT is the whole shebang, or equal to FT's Mass. This I get from the "a
vessels cargo capacity is less than it's total deadweight tonnage..." bit from
the definition. DWT is the maximum displacement of the vessel under a FULL
LOAD, hence the total filled tonnage.
DWT = Structure + Max Cargo
Gross Tonnage is cargo volume and hull/systems, similar to Mass in FTFB
and
FT2 but more for the purposes of registration/ cargo costing. I don't
know if this is identical to DWT but it sounds like it.
GT = Structure + Cargo Volume
Gross Registered Tonnage is the Cargo Space ONLY. Identical to Net Tonnage.
GRT = Cargo Volume
Net Tonnage would be the FT equivalent of the 50% for weapons, cargo and
systems. It corresponds to the FTFB equivalent of everything but drives,
weapons and systems. A pure expression of the cargo capacity of the ship.
NT = Cargo Volume
Deadweight (gross tonnage?) is the theoretical maximum displacement of the
vessel (Mass 200 bulk carrier)
Net Tonnage/ Gross Registered Tonnage for said Mass 200 Bulk Carrier = 4
holds of 149 Mass total.
So the Shimano Maru a 200,000 ton ore carrier, will depart from New Albion on
the 21st of December, carrying 20 crew and 149,000 tons of diatomaceous earth
from the toothpaste mines. (on the DS2 table top it would be about 14 inches
long by 3 wide by 2 and a quarter tall....:))
Sound good (whether or not it's right in the real world)?
> ----------
The
> number
> On 24 Nov 98, at 9:33, George,Eugene M wrote:
> The fun bit is, I measured all of the resins and if the Ms 120 Assault
Um... to make it 250/28... erm 8 and a bit times bigger it only
needs to be about double the height, width and length.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK you do it then. Point is, it's damn big.
> ----------