Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > Software Solutions

Software Solutions Discussions on Traveller related software.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 15th, 2020, 01:13 PM
vegas's Avatar
vegas vegas is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 697
Gallery : 0
vegas Citizen
Default

@AD,

When it comes to hull/bridge/fuel purifier implications of collapsible/demountable/drop/exterior tanks, I think many of your comments are feature requests (eg demountable treated as retained drop) or are debatable under RAW. Ships can be retrofitted with tanks, and RAW does not require changing the fuel purifier (or bridge!) to do it.

I say KISS and have the app do less as the user can impose whatever constraints they want by adding lines in the payload. Reasonable users may disagree. (Even if you think more fuel purifier is "required" RAW when tanks are present, perhaps the use-case is that a tanker fills retrofitted tanks with refined fuel...)

One of your comments is wrong:
Quote:
Any size drop tanks leads to "We're sorry, but something went wrong." when using a standard LBB2 jump drive.
The app will accept drop tanks with standard designs, but under what circumstances the application errors is unclear to me. I posted around this issue above. I think the error is hull size, but maybe it is engine related. I haven't figured it out yet as a user.

Quote:
The computer should limit agility to 1 below PPn, so 3 with tanks and 5 w/o tanks.
Huh?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old September 15th, 2020, 05:45 PM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,114
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
When it comes to hull/bridge/fuel purifier implications of collapsible/demountable/drop/exterior tanks, I think many of your comments are feature requests (eg demountable treated as retained drop) or are debatable under RAW. Ships can be retrofitted with tanks, and RAW does not require changing the fuel purifier (or bridge!) to do it.
Possibly some feature request, but some are just wrong.

Bridges should not be affected by internal or external tanks, just basic hull size.

Exterior demountable tanks are handled incorrectly: they are external, so should not consume space inside the hull, but should explicitly by RAW affect drive performance (just like retained drop tanks).

By RAW ships must have a full load of fuel (which may be in external tanks). The fuel purifier must be dimensioned for all fuel tankage, so at least a full load. It's not now. I call that incorrect behaviour.

RAW is pretty clear, as far as I can see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBB5, p22
Fuel tankage must be sufficient to contain a full load for the power plant and the jump drive. Additional tankage may be installed as an option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A5 TCS, p13
All craft must be fitted with fuel tanks during the design and construction process. The size of those tanks is determined by the fuel formulae for jump drives and power plants. ... Enough fuel for the power plant must be carried in normal fuel tanks; jump fuel and additional fuel may be carried in one of the additional tankage types outlined below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBB5, p27
The fuel purification plant cost is based on 1,000 tons of fuel. A large ship with a large fuel tank capacity requires several plants. A small fuel tank capacity requires a fraction of the fuel purification plant shown.
I agree that if you add more fuel tankage in drop tanks or demountable tanks after the ship is designed, the fuel purifier need not be changed. Any external tanks always changes drive performance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
I say KISS and have the app do less as the user can impose whatever constraints they want by adding lines in the payload.
Letting the user do what he wants is great, but the app should default to RAW IMHO.

A feature request would be for an optional validation system that checks that the ship is correct by RAW, even if the user adjusts to taste. That way a player can hand his design to the Referee with a clear "Validated" mark.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
One of your comments is wrong:The app will accept drop tanks with standard designs, but under what circumstances the application errors is unclear to me. I posted around this issue above. I think the error is hull size, but maybe it is engine related. I haven't figured it out yet as a user.
Possibly, I haven't tested all possibilities, but a few cases from 200 Dt to 1800 Dt. With no internal jump fuel, any drop tank at all combined with a standard LBB2 jump drive leads to error.

Add J-1 internal jump fuel or a custom jump drive and the error disappears.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
Quote:
The computer should limit agility to 1 below PPn, so 3 with tanks and 5 w/o tanks.
Huh?
The computer draws power. Hence a ship with a PP-4 and that computer cannot have enough free power for Agility 4. See the example:

The app calculates power production and hence agility incorrectly in this case. Makes sense?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old September 16th, 2020, 04:07 PM
vegas's Avatar
vegas vegas is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 697
Gallery : 0
vegas Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherDilbert View Post
RAW is pretty clear, as far as I can see:
I don't want to clutter up Matt's feedback thread with too much rules lawyering, so I'll be real brief an move on but I gotta disagree. Re-read the B5 p22 and A5 p13 quotes you posted; they contradict each other. The CT errata makes explicit that less than 4 weeks PP fuel is OK in both the xboat and small craft errata. IMHO Matt's implementation is perfect.

Back to bug reports.

Quote:
The computer draws power. Hence a ship with a PP-4 and that computer cannot have enough free power for Agility 4. See the example:
The ship in your example has PP 6, not 4. Nevertheless, there is something weird about how that checkbox works (it adds the drop tanks to ship dtons when calcuating EPs). As a user, I always leave it unchecked and the agility calcs come out just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old September 16th, 2020, 06:34 PM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,114
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
I don't want to clutter up Matt's feedback thread with too much rules lawyering, so I'll be real brief an move on but I gotta disagree.
OK.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
The ship in your example has PP 6, not 4.
That is one of the problems.

It's a 1800 Dt ship with a 1200 Dton drop tank, so total 3000 Dton.

A standard Z-drive is potential 6 w/o tank and potential 4 w tank. The app lists it as potential 6 w tank. That is wrong. As a consequence the EP calculation is incorrect. Note that the custom jump drive is also potential 6 w/o tank and potential 4 w tank, and listed correctly.

The drive potential calculations in the drop tanks section are correct, but the agility calculations are wrong, presumably because the EP calculation for the PP is incorrect.




Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
Nevertheless, there is something weird about how that checkbox works (it adds the drop tanks to ship dtons when calcuating EPs).
That is as it should be, I assume, and necessary to design a ship like the Gazelle with a permanent drop tank. Check the checkbox and the drives are dimensioned for the ship with drop tanks. It works for custom drives, but not for standard drives.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas View Post
As a user, I always leave it unchecked and the agility calcs come out just fine.
The agility calculation in the drive section is still incorrect. It should be Agility 3, but listed as Agility 6.

The ship with tank has Man-4, PP-4, and some other power consumption (the computer), hence the agility is lower than 4.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old September 16th, 2020, 07:38 PM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,114
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

To explain it more clearly I see two problems with the drive calculations:

(The ship is 1800 Dt with a 1200 Dt drop tank for a total volume of 3000 Dt and has a computer m/4 using 2 EP.)

1: EP produced is based on ship+tank, EP needed for agility is based on ship alone, in the drive section. The drop tank section is correct. Note that agility is 3 in the tank section!



2: When using standard LBB2 drives, potential is based on ship alone in the drive section, but the EP produced is based on ship+tank, hence the produced EP is incorrect. The tank section calculates the correct drive potentials, but presumably uses the incorrect EP produced to calculate an incorrect agility:

Note that with standard drives the ship+tanks and the ship alone leads to two different values for EP produced (and required for full agility):
Ship+tank: 3000 Dt PP-4 1% = 120 EP.
Ship alone: 1800 Dt PP-6 1% = 108 EP.
So the value calculated in the drive section should not be used in the tank section...
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old September 16th, 2020, 07:52 PM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,114
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

We can add that the sum of the drive costs is wrong if the sum is slightly above MCr 1000:


Sum should be MCr 600 + MCr 165 + MCr 360 = MCr 1125.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old September 17th, 2020, 01:02 PM
AnotherDilbert AnotherDilbert is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 2,114
Gallery : 0
AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+AnotherDilbert Citizen+
Default

TL-8 ship:




1: Standard jump drive inappropriately limited by custom drive TL table.

2: Standard man drive not limited by custom drive TL table or LBB3 TL table, which I believe is correct!

At least standard drives of all types should be treated equally?


3: With no jump drive the drop tank section list jump capability as "-1", not "0".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CT Only: Favorite Classic Traveller ship(s) Murph Classic Traveller 104 October 12th, 2017 04:41 PM
Free-Form Ship Builder robject Traveller 5 2 July 16th, 2014 01:57 AM
My dream ship builder dalthor Traveller 5 2 April 3rd, 2014 03:04 PM
Ship sizes for some classic ships ... daryen The Fleet 28 July 7th, 2011 12:44 AM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.