configuration questions

JAFARR · #1 February 2nd, 2009, 12:41 AM

1. What configuration would you call a teardrop? Cone maybe?
2. Just what is a flattened sphere? I would assume god's eye-view to be a circle and cross section cutaway to be an ovular with a flattened bottom if intended to make planetary landings?

Also for ships that do land, are runways required or do they just drop down on a cloud of flames, etc.?

Added: I also forgot to ask, Is there a official limit to how large a ship can be and still make a planetary landing?

DaveChase · #2 February 2nd, 2009, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAFARR

1. What configuration would you call a teardrop? Cone maybe?
2. Just what is a flattened sphere? I would assume god's eye-view to be a circle and cross section cutaway to be an ovular with a flattened bottom if intended to make planetary landings?

Also for ships that do land, are runways required or do they just drop down on a cloud of flames, etc.?

Cone, sphere, modified sphere, streamlined sphere

What would you call a bomb from WW2. some of those were tear drop in general shape.

Dave Chase

sabredog · #3 February 2nd, 2009, 01:11 AM

A cone.

A flattened sphere is a disk...like the ships the K'kree build for example. Or the ships in "Independence Day".

They can land any way you want. Some of the artwork in JTAS showed pits for ships to land in, some show runways, so the imagination is the limit. Personally I go with the runway design, it's flexible and supports lower tech take-offs for ships needing some kind of booster. It also depends on how you think the drives on ships work: are they belching out radioactive fire like a fusion reaction drive, or are they reactionless (like the canon) gravitic drives that don't need huge areas to launch from because they don't go off like a small nuke.

Another thought is the layout of the ships. How are the decks laid out? How does cargo get on an off the ship? All these can tell you how the ship lands and takes off, too, because they help you figure out what the ship has to look like sitting on the ground - so how does it get to that position.

sabredog · #4 February 2nd, 2009, 01:18 AM

Oh, and while there isn't any official limit (at least in CT) that I've ever found I have imposed a limit of 2000 tons. Anything bigger than that uses either lighters or just docks at the orbital port. It's just an arbitrary limit of mine because even that is one monster of a mass to support when it's on the ground under gravity.

My A & B ports have orbital facilities as well as a groundside, typically serviced by a beanstalk and regular cargo lighter service. If it's C or less, then you have to land or use lighters - no orbital facilities.

far-trader · #5 February 2nd, 2009, 01:19 AM

My take only of course

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAFARR

1. What configuration would you call a teardrop? Cone maybe?

Yep, sounds about right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAFARR

2. Just what is a flattened sphere? I would assume god's eye-view to be a circle and cross section cutaway to be an ovular with a flattened bottom if intended to make planetary landings?

Again I'm in agreement. In general anything significantly less than a sphere but still ovoid down to a classic saucer (disk with rounded circumference edge) would be a flattened sphere imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAFARR

Also for ships that do land, are runways required or do they just drop down on a cloud of flames, etc.?

Varies on the rules, my mood, and the art

For example CT only had streamlined and not, but the art for the Fat-Trader with it's wings certainly implies a lifting body and it should be operating at Class A and B starports most of the time, so runways would be expected. While the art for the Free-Trader with no proper lifting wings and a horizontal deck and the likelyhood of operating away from better starports implies a vertical landing under full contragrav to be the norm. I imagine my CG to have a force btw, something akin to a pressure wave with a felt force drop off square of distance and footprint of the ship but radiating out. So you need some clearance and a hard surface to settle on or you'll be doing damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAFARR

Is there a official limit to how large a ship can be and still make a planetary landing?

Nope, not that I recall, but it has been figured by someone somewhere (I forget who and it might have been on the TML and/or a Yahoo group). I seem to recall the number being around* 5000tons to 15000tons based on physics without handwave reliance. I think it varied depending on the configuration and orientation. Long ships have to be smaller or tailsitters (to avoid snapping the spine under loads).

* for streamlined hulls - unstreamlined can't, at all, period, never mind those who say they can land any contragrav ship in an atmosphere no matter how non-aerodynamic it is

Hope that helps

GypsyComet · #6 February 2nd, 2009, 01:23 AM

I know it was stated somewhere in CT that 5000 dtons was the limit for landings, but whether that's a physics limitation or a real estate issue wasn't stated.

Keep in mind that 5000 dtons is some 25 to 30 times the size of a fully fitted 747, and you begin to understand the limit on just a real estate basis...

**aramis** · #7 February 2nd, 2009, 02:45 AM

A flattened sphere could also be a Cylon Raider from oBSG... technically, it's a flattened oval, but in game terms, it's a 10-15 Td flattened spheroid.

BlackBat242 · #8 February 2nd, 2009, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by far-trader

For example CT only had streamlined and not,

Book 2 had only that, but book 5 (page 22-23) had full, partial, or non-streamlined configurations.

Icosahedron · #9 February 2nd, 2009, 06:01 AM

My Cr2:

Teardrop is probably a Cone, though it might depend on how elongated it is and which way round it flies.

Flattened Sphere, I'm with FT; anything from an ovoid to a saucer.

Landing is a matter of taste. Mine drop down quietly on grav.

Size for landing is also a matter of taste and probably depends on your drive system. I use 5000dT as the limit, simply because it's the borderline between LBB2 and LBB5.
I also use a seperate skill - Pilot for landers and Helm for the big guys.

I wouldn't want to land a 5kT torch ship tail down in a meadow, though.

GypsyComet · #10 February 2nd, 2009, 12:28 PM

The configurations are all subject to a bit of drift, and really come down to two in-game effects: how streamlined can it be, and how hard is it to hit in combat with certain weapons (namely the meson gun).

Quite a few example ships can be interpreted as more than one of the configurations. The Millennium Falcon could be an oblate cone (albeit with the point missing) or could be a flattened sphere (with considerable superstructure), as one easy example.