|
Post by Inquisitor Lord Vatsyayana on Jun 16, 2004 6:51:41 GMT -5
Would it be helpful for you if you had an XLS automated spreadhseet for building ships? It's made to Traveller specs, but if we have someone with good Excel skills, it could be changed as needed.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 22, 2004 3:21:22 GMT -5
Would it be helpful for you if you had an XLS automated spreadhseet for building ships? It's made to Traveller specs, but if we have someone with good Excel skills, it could be changed as needed. Hmmn... I wouldn't mind that myself, though. Which system is it for (as in which of the Traveller versions)?
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 22, 2004 3:24:09 GMT -5
Is being able to program the t-test manually for some four hundred stats good enough?
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jun 22, 2004 4:05:02 GMT -5
Is being able to program the t-test manually for some four hundred stats good enough? And what about Chi-square for example? I even don't mention skewed samples and calculating stats for them... Back to topic - is not there programs already made for this?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 22, 2004 4:19:21 GMT -5
Probably... I'd like to get my hands on GURPS Vehicle Designer myself, but that was always a tad expensive for my liking... Incidentally, since discussion seems to have separated partially, I'll repost the information here... And even one-third of that is a tad on the large side, meaning either CELS formulae is way off (and he did say that this is likely the case) or the v-ton displacement estimates shouldn't be increased by a factor of 30... which is even more likely...
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 22, 2004 5:23:23 GMT -5
My formula(e) are 'horrendously rough', yes, but I don't imagine that they're waaay off. I'm pretty sure that standard measurements are cirka x * 2x * 7x, with the length varying between 4x and 10x, apparently. I'd be very surprised to see a ship that is 4x * 4x * 6x or another drastically different shape. But if x= 52,500, Kage, then the following should be true 52,500 * 52,500(2) * 52,500(10) = 21,100,00 Unfortunately, it is not. 52,500 * 52,500(2) * 52,500(10) = 2,894,062,500,000,000 How about 2,100,000 = 2x * x * 6x = 12x^3 x^3 = 175,000 x = 55,93 The length of this ship is 335 meters Or did I misunderstand?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 22, 2004 11:57:51 GMT -5
Thank you for that patronisation, well deserved in this case... I forgot two things. MS Calculator doesn't like x y when you forget to do the 1/ 3 in parantheses, and it's also compounded when you forget to convert v-displacement in to m 3. Oops... The calculation therefore becomes (and using CELS new value of 12x 3): Volume = v-displ.14 V = 2,100,000.14 V = 29,400,000 m3
Volume = 12x3 29,400,000 m3 = 12x3 x = rt.3 (29,400,000/12) x ~ 135m If the length is 12x, this means that it is (12x135=) 1,620m, or 1.62km or just under a mile. Which is actually a tad small from a battleship, implying that a v-disp. of 1,400,000 displacement tonnes might not even be right as the 'upper limit'... And yes, CELS, you obviously misunderstood the genius that I was attempting to... erm... well, kill. (God, I feel like I'm 6 again... )
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 22, 2004 12:39:36 GMT -5
LoL
I changed it to x*2x*6x because we were talking about a small ship, and looking at the models and artwork for freighters and the like, small ships tend to be between 4x and 7x in length, IIRC. (I've written about this earlier in this very thread)
So an Imperial cruiser and above is likely to have a quite different shape than the smallest vessels. Much longer and slimmer, actually.
For cruisers, I'd use x*2x*10x. Grand cruisers and battleships are probably slightly different, because they're a lot bulkier (especially grand cruisers).
Well, taking advantage of this rush of constructive atmosphere, I'll just go ahead and post some templates for the size of the various ships that I know of. The ones in italics, I have made up without any artwork or fluff to help me out.
Super-heavy barge - x * x * 8x Heavy barge - x * 2x * 7x Barge - x * x * 7x Carrack - x * 2x * 6x Galleon - x * 2x * 5x Freighter - x * x * 5x Clipper - x * x * 5x Sprint trader - 2x * 3x * 9x Caravel - x * 2x * 4x
Feel free to disagree, but I doubt there's any important fluff or artwork that I've missed that can be of help.
|
|
|
Post by Inquisitor Lord Vatsyayana on Jun 23, 2004 2:58:05 GMT -5
Thank you for that patronisation, well deserved in this case... I forgot two things. MS Calculator doesn't like x y when you forget to do the 1/ 3 in parantheses, and it's also compounded when you forget to convert v-displacement in to m 3. Oops... The calculation therefore becomes (and using CELS new value of 12x 3): Volume = v-displ.14 V = 2,100,000.14 V = 29,400,000 m3
Volume = 12x3 29,400,000 m3 = 12x3 x = rt.3 (29,400,000/12) x ~ 135m If the length is 12x, this means that it is (12x135=) 1,620m, or 1.62km or just under a mile. Which is actually a tad small from a battleship, implying that a v-disp. of 1,400,000 displacement tonnes might not even be right as the 'upper limit'... And yes, CELS, you obviously misunderstood the genius that I was attempting to... erm... well, kill. (God, I feel like I'm 6 again... ) Just to throw my 2 Denari in; A 1.4M DT Battleship would be approximately 1,003.55m in length, 140m wide and 140m in height. This is assuming we are building according to the following specs; TL: 14 Hull Shape: Needle (Assuming needle-like Imperial design) Configuration: Streamlined Volume (m3): 9792.621 Mass (tons): 146889.3 This is if you use Traveller ship building stats.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 23, 2004 6:40:27 GMT -5
What is the 'needle' hull design, exactly? Is it anything like x * 2x *10x?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 23, 2004 11:27:15 GMT -5
Traveller - I have yet to find out which version of the RPG is being used - calculates lengths with gross shape sizes. Broadly, yes, it would be something similar to the idea of a ship which is horrendously longer than it is in any other dimension... Though it seems that Inquisitor Lord Vatsyayana "does a Kage" in this post. He mentions a 1.4M t d ship, then mentions a volume of 9793 m 3 which given the 1t d=14m 3 doesn't quite work... And those figures look like those that were published in MegaTraveller... Furthermore, the general single-tech component assumption of Traveller doesn't work, a problem that we find in applying the Guide elsewhere... It's not that much of a problem, just requires a bit of thought...
|
|
|
Post by Inquisitor Lord Vatsyayana on Jun 24, 2004 5:55:45 GMT -5
Traveller - I have yet to find out which version of the RPG is being used - calculates lengths with gross shape sizes. Broadly, yes, it would be something similar to the idea of a ship which is horrendously longer than it is in any other dimension... Though it seems that Inquisitor Lord Vatsyayana "does a Kage" in this post. He mentions a 1.4M t d ship, then mentions a volume of 9793 m 3 which given the 1t d=14m 3 doesn't quite work... And those figures look like those that were published in MegaTraveller... Furthermore, the general single-tech component assumption of Traveller doesn't work, a problem that we find in applying the Guide elsewhere... It's not that much of a problem, just requires a bit of thought... I used Fire Fusion & Steel stats. If you want, I can give you a link to an excel spreadsheet that calculates all of it for you. All you have to do is tell it what tech level on what tonnage. Oh, CELS? Needle is the basic shape of the hull. Most Imperial ships have a needle-like configuration from what I've seen. I'm not real up on Battlefleet thou.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 24, 2004 11:50:18 GMT -5
I used Fire Fusion & Steel stats. If you want, I can give you a link to an excel spreadsheet that calculates all of it for you. All you have to do is tell it what tech level on what tonnage. Ah, so you're using TNE... At least I know now! Please feel free to send this to me at ka_ge2020@hotmail.com or KageMAT@aol.com... The configuration assumptions of that by 'configuration' would be useful... but then again similar statistics were posted in the 'ole MT Ref's Manual... Most Imperial ships have a needle-like configuration from what I've seen. I'm not real up on Battlefleet thou. Hmmn, things like Cobra and Gothic's do appear to have a needle-configuration in plan, but when you consider them generally I'm not sure that it entirely works when balanced against volume and/or volume-displacement. Consider the Gothic with the two massive superstructures, one of which probably comprises almost 30% of the volume of the 'needle' projection... But then again, guestimating volumes from the miniatures is horrendously difficult. Wedge would probably be the best 'average', purely from a qualitative standpoint...
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 29, 2004 1:41:55 GMT -5
Hmmm, let's try to revive this thread again, shall we? Looking at the list I posted above, I realize that it's not in keeping with my original idea. Though some members on the ASP forum requested a hierarchy that ranked the ships according to length, Kage disagreed with this because volume was a far better description of ship size. As a compromise, I proposed that we structure the hierarchy according to volume, with ship length as a side note. For example: Clipper - 3,000,000 - 3,500,000 tonnes, 150-250 meters. Freighter - 3,500,000 - 5,000,000 tonnes, 200-450 meters In order to do this, I have revised my 'templates' for estimating ship dimensions, with maximum and minimum length. But... we need to consider why ships would have different shapes. Looking at nautical ships in the real world, different shapes come from different purposes. If I recall correctly, ships with heavy cargo (such as oil tankers or ore freighters) are much higher than they are broad, because they lay deep in the water, for maximum stability. They're also fairly oblong, which has something to do with how the waves hit the hull. The longer the ship, the easier it cuts through the waves, and the faster it goes. A fast and stable ship also needs to be 'aquadynamic', i.e. not brick-shaped, but here a compromise needs to be found in order to make the ship an effective transport. You can't fit as many square crates into a ship with a round hull. In space, there is no resistance from air or water, so the main concern is stress upon the hull from accelerating and turning. If the ship is very wide, with engines in the center, accelerating hard will cause the center of the ship to be moving faster than the sides of the ship, and you risk the ship doing like the Batmobile did in one of the Batman movies to fit in that narrow ally Or, simply put, you risk great damage to the ship. Having a longer, needle shaped ship might be better for acceleration, but it's not really ideal either, I suppose. You'd get a kind of harmonica effect happening, with the middle of the ship being squashed by the slow moving prow and the faster moving stern. Thus, for accelleration, the best thing is a compact, squat design. When it comes to making turns, a long, needle ship is a nightmare. Again, a squat, compact design is preferable, I think. So why are Imperial warships so long? Well, if they were cube-shaped, you wouldn't have as many guns per tonne, for one thing. It's also more difficult to hit long, sleek space ships than big cubes, especially when they're coming right at you. An Imperial cruiser coming at you is really a nightmare, because the visible surface is tiny compared to the actual size of the ship, and their prows are heavily armoured. Compare this with the bulky Kroot warspheres, or the Demiurg commerce vessels. Now.. is there any need for long, sleek Imperial merchant ships? Hmm... Well, it might have something to do with the warp drive. If you have a ship that is 20 meters broad, 20 meters tall and 80 meters long, you could have a system-engine that is 20*20*20 meters and a 20*20*20 meter warp drive. The cargo-area might be the same size (20*20*20). If you redesigned the ship to be a 32*32*32 meter cube, your warp drive and engine could only be 8 meters long, which might be very difficult to construct, and your cargo-room would only be 8 meters long, which means you can no longer carry objects that are 10*10*10 meters. Well, this explains why there aren't cube-shaped ships, but it doesn't explain why we'd want a sleek sprint trader like the one owned by Maxilla in the Eisenhorn novels. According to my arguments, the fastest ships would be quite squat and compact. The longer ships would be the slow, heavy barges or something. Help me make sense of this, please.
|
|
|
Post by Inquisitor Lord Vatsyayana on Jun 29, 2004 3:06:52 GMT -5
There are other design considerations to take into effect as well. What's the purpose of the craft? What functions can it do? Is it atmospheric capable (say for refueling by skimming a gas giant)? You are right that certain hulls are better for certain jobs. Here's a link for a spreadsheet program that will do most of the calulations for you. It'll give you a better idea of what kind of space you'll get for your tonnage. http://stellar_dreams.tripod.com/Software.htm
|
|