I did some calculations... (I know, it is a very bad habit and a really should
stop...)
The thrust ratings of freighters should increase as they cary less cargo. Why?
Size doesn't mean much in space, but mass does. Without cargo, those
freighters mass a whole lot less, and their engines will be able accelorate
and deccelorate them much more quickly. Note that this could also be applied
to some carriers, but I've checked every single carry in the FB, there is no
difference in their thrust ratings. For my purposes, only full 5% increases of
drive mass to ship counts.
Formula: (Md x Td) / (Md - Meh) = Tc
Md = Design Mass, or mass when fully loaded Td = Design Thrust, or thrust when
fully loaded Meh = Mass of Empty Holds, how cargo is the ship not carrying Tc
= Current Thrust, what is the current thrust rating for the ships mass.
Note: Always round down to the nearest whole thrust.
Examples from the FB:
Full Cargo Modules: 4/4 3/4 2/4 1/4 0/4
Heavy Freighter: 2 2 3 4 6
Medium Freighter 2 2 3 4 6
Light Freighter 2 2 3 4 6
Free Trader 4 4 5 5 6
Fleet Auxillary 2 2 2 3 4
Bulk Carrier 1 1 1 2 3
> I did some calculations... (I know, it is a very bad habit and a
True. Unfortunately WAY too complex. Even though it lacks as much scientific
realism, I opt for the simple path.
This road leads to differing thrust according to fuel and ammunition loads. I
don't even want to go there.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >I did some calculations... (I know, it is a very bad habit and a
It is not as bad as you think. You have to substantially decrease mass to gain
thrust. The user friendly way to do this is to make a scale Effective Thrust
on one side, and number holds filled on the other.
Example for Heavy Freighters: Thrust Holds
2 3-4
3 2
4 1
6 0
This will allow frieghters to dump cargo to increase thrust in emergency
situations.
> At 10:25 AM 1/23/99 -0500, IAS wrote:
[snip]
> This will allow frieghters to dump cargo to increase thrust in
True... kinda. The thing is, who's to say what is *in* the holds? If one hold
is full of iron ore, and another full of... of... I dunno, goose feathers,
they are going to have a considerably different mass to begin with. While
everything in ship construction goes by mass, the cargo holds actually take up
*volume*.
So I'd opt for keeping things simple, as well. Besides, instead of having
thrust go *up* as holds are emptied, I'd rather have thrusts go *down* when
the holds are filled... after all, warships won't be packed solid with
stuff like merchies might, so the thrust-2 on that freighter may be it's
max thrust when empty. ^_^
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Aaron Teske wrote:
i disagree. you get this with cargo ships today, and holds are very rarely
totally filled with very dense cargo, so that a hold's carrying capacity
is mass-limited not volume-limited. it would be daft to build a ship
with a million cubic metre cargo hold, capable of doing full acceleration when
the hold is full of steel; it would be going ludicriously fast if you decided
to ship hollowfibre wall insulation instead.
what i meani is that the definition of 'full' for a hold will be based on
mass, not volume.
besides, isn't it realistic to assume that most freighters will use
strap-on cargo bays? the ship itself is an engine, a jump motor,
sensors, computers, a bridge and some crew space. the cargo is loaded into big
boxes and the boxes are fixed to the ship. feathers would just be carried in
bigger boxes:
<============# the ship
[**] [**]
<============# the ship carrying steel
[**] [**]
/--------\
|%%%%%%%%|
<============# the ship carrying feathers
|%%%%%%%%|
\--------/
since freighters don't need to wrap everything in an armoured hull as warships
do, there is no incentive to use internal cargo bays.
> So I'd opt for keeping things simple, as well.
i'd agree, but it's nice to have the option of having the option of dumping
cargo, if you catch my drift.
> after all, warships won't be packed solid with
oh, they will. why would warships have any free space? that would be
inefficient design. they are packed solid with power plants, drives,
computers, armaments, crew quarters, etc. look at how much room each sailor
gets on a current warship (on an rn destroyer, it's basically a bunk in a
cupboard).
Tom
That's what I was thinking when I came up with this idea. Even if you don't
want to use it everyday, it would be fun for a scenario rule where the convoy
has to get x-mass of cargo off the board. The freighters when then have
the option to ditch some of their cargo to have better chance of making it,
but if that just means the pirates have to kill fewer freighters...
Interesting???
IAS
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Aaron Teske wrote:
If one
> > hold is full of iron ore, and another full of... of... I dunno,
In a message dated 99-01-23 08:55:53 EST, you write:
<< I did some calculations... (I know, it is a very bad habit and a really
should stop...)
****
Don't
****
The thrust ratings of freighters should increase as they cary less cargo. Why?
Size doesn't mean much in space, but mass does. Without cargo, those
freighters mass a whole lot less, and their engines will be able accelorate
and deccelorate them much more quickly. Note that this could also be applied
to some carriers, but I've checked every single carry in the FB, there is no
difference in their thrust ratings. For my purposes, only full 5% increases of
drive mass to ship counts.
Formula: (Md x Td) / (Md - Meh) = Tc
Md = Design Mass, or mass when fully loaded Td = Design Thrust, or thrust when
fully loaded Meh = Mass of Empty Holds, how cargo is the ship not carrying Tc
= Current Thrust, what is the current thrust rating for the ships mass.
Note: Always round down to the nearest whole thrust.
Examples from the FB:
Full Cargo Modules: 4/4 3/4 2/4 1/4 0/4
Heavy Freighter: 2 2 3 4 6
Medium Freighter 2 2 3 4 6
Light Freighter 2 2 3 4 6
Free Trader 4 4 5 5 6
Fleet Auxillary 2 2 2 3 4 Bulk Carrier 1 1 1 2 3 >> This seems a lot like the
rules for Landship Movement from Heavy Gear or the spaceship rules form JC,
both by DP9. I think that it might work in FT.
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-01-23 09:41:47 EST, you write:
<< This road leads to differing thrust according to fuel and ammunition loads.
I don't even want to go there. >> For ships with SMR, SML, SP, ScatPac, and
missiles it would make a diferace. More tactial posibilitys.
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-01-23 11:06:01 EST, you write:
<< So I'd opt for keeping things simple, as well. Besides, instead of having
thrust go *up* as holds are emptied, I'd rather have thrusts go *down* when
the holds are filled... after all, warships won't be packed solid with
stuff like merchies might, so the thrust-2 on that freighter may be
it's
max thrust when empty. ^_^ >>
The Merchies are desinged with full cargo holds, if you take that mass out
while leaving the other componets with there curent mass thrust goes up.
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-01-23 11:53:08 EST, you write:
<< since freighters don't need to wrap everything in an armoured hull as
warships do, there is no incentive to use internal cargo bays.
> So I'd opt for keeping things simple, as well.
i'd agree, but it's nice to have the option of having the option of dumping
cargo, if you catch my drift.
I wonder what a feather could do to a fighter?
> after all, warships won't be packed solid with
oh, they will. why would warships have any free space? that would be
inefficient design. they are packed solid with power plants, drives,
computers, armaments, crew quarters, etc. look at how much room each sailor
gets on a current warship (on an rn destroyer, it's basically a bunk in a
cupboard).
Tom >> If you look at FB1 (ESU inparticular) they keep talking about how
limited space is.
-Stephen
It is not as bad as a lot of you are making out to be. I have checked EVERY
ship in the FB, no existing military design will gain thrust. The construction
rules of the FB are very tight; you can not design warships that gain thrust
from expending missiles or launching fighters unless it has very
few beams / torpedoes and is for all pratical purposes a one-shot ship.
The thrust gained will not be much, probably never enough to compensate for
such weak warships.
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> > after all, warships won't be packed solid with
Ever hear of "Fitted For But Not With"? That is, extra space IS allowed in the
design, so extra weapons etc etc can be fitted later. If you don't do this,
and you find your ships need refits, they either get slower, or something
useful has to be removed.
To simulate old (ie pre 3rd Solarian) ships mentioned in the FB, I'm
allocating some "unused mass" to them. Not much, just enough to show
In a message dated 99-01-24 11:22:06 EST, you write:
<< Ever hear of "Fitted For But Not With"? That is, extra space IS allowed in
the design, so extra weapons etc etc can be fitted later. If you don't do
this, and you find your ships need refits, they either get slower, or
something useful has to be removed.
To simulate old (ie pre 3rd Solarian) ships mentioned in the FB, I'm
allocating some "unused mass" to them. Not much, just enough to show that they
use a slightly less efficient technology. And ships built
after 3rd Solarian also have the same thing - only this time, it's
space for refits. The FB1 also makes mention of some ships having been
"refitted". Versions pre-refit need making too. >>
Yes, those ship would get extra speed. The idea of tech levels is a good one,
maybe 5-15%?
-Stephen
Hi, In starmada (A very good FREE starship combat game (not that unlike Full
Thrust) they handled merchies by stating that they were less advaned. They way
that I would do that in FT would be that a Merchi has to bay 7% per thrust
facter, 14% for FTL and 14% per "hull level" (fragile is hull level 1, week is
hull level 2,ect, but they would get hull boxs as per the standard, not what
was devoted in mass). Just some ideas to play around with, maybe something
with the tech level idea that just started kicking around.
-Stephen
I play around with those numbers for other genres, but you have to be very
carefull about points cost. It is very easy to modify the FB ship design
system
into something un-balanced. Used as is, it very good.
IAS
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> Hi,
They
> way that I would do that in FT would be that a Merchi has to bay 7%
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> I wonder what a feather could do to a fighter?
depends how fast it's going. say a feather is 5 g, and is stationary. a
fighter going at 10000 m/s (10g for 100 secs) hits it; assuming the
fighter has infinite mass (dontcha just love physics :-), the kinetic
energy involved in the impact is 500 kJ, enough to heat ten kilos of water
about 12 degrees kelvin. not a lot, really.
> > > after all, warships won't be packed solid with
well, when you've got the KV to spinward, the SV to widdershins,
intergalactic void above and below and inter-arm gaps hubward and
rimward, yes, i suppose space is quite limited... sorry. bad joke.
i don't have the fleet book, but this still does not interfere with my
point - space concerns exist for military ships, as everything has to be
packed inside an armoured hull, whereas merchants do not have this problem.
unless FB1 refers to merchants with space problems, that is.
Tom
In a message dated 99-01-24 14:04:46 EST, you write:
<< > I wonder what a feather could do to a fighter?
depends how fast it's going. say a feather is 5 g, and is stationary. a
fighter going at 10000 m/s (10g for 100 secs) hits it; assuming the
fighter has infinite mass (dontcha just love physics :-), the kinetic
energy involved in the impact is 500 kJ, enough to heat ten kilos of water
about 12 degrees kelvin. not a lot, really.
XXXX Good point, but if you put all of the anergy into one point it might do
anuff damage to crack a canopy open. There was a item on the news a while
back, it
talked about how a F-16's (or was it some other one) pilot got his skull
cracked open by a bird. I'm assuming that the fighters would be moving a lot
faster than the F-16 so a feather might do some damage.
XXXX
> > > after all, warships won't be packed solid with
well, when you've got the KV to spinward, the SV to widdershins,
intergalactic void above and below and inter-arm gaps hubward and
rimward, yes, i suppose space is quite limited... sorry. bad joke.
XXXX If it wasn't there would be no wars, unless of cource your paranoid. XXXX
i don't have the fleet book, but this still does not interfere with my
point - space concerns exist for military ships, as everything has to
be packed inside an armoured hull, whereas merchants do not have this problem.
unless FB1 refers to merchants with space problems, that is.
Tom
> [quoted text omitted]
I agree with the last part. In FB1 it talks about how Merchies are "tin cans
with a drive unit on one end an a command moduel on the other" so I don't
think that they have space problems.
-Stephen