Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > Sylean Academy of Art and Design

Sylean Academy of Art and Design Computer graphics, physical models, and other artistic projects

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 26th, 2010, 12:24 AM
navanod's Avatar
navanod navanod is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 279
Gallery : 28
navanod Citizen
Default An idea

The actual text lists room for 17 additional people...

Quote:
...plus 17 spaces for research personnel, technicians, or troops
That says to me that possibly the dish is a sensor upgrade for a research variant. So there's a little wriggle room there. Now, just what to do with that blunt square nose....
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old November 26th, 2010, 12:33 PM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Default

Looking at it again, it wouldn't be a huge crime to shift some of the fuel from the back to the front (about half deck fuel shielding surround), allowing something more like the original block modular forms...

EDITED:

Quote:
Originally Posted by far-trader View Post
Running some numbers my suggestion would be:

Forward section: 4 decks x 10.5m wide x 27.5m long = 257tons + 8tons for turrets
Bridge (20tons), Comp (5tons), Staterooms (100tons), 42tons Stores, Fuel (90tons) + Turrets (8tons) = 265tons

Middle section: As per the description leave this an open framework, permitting mounting of and filling in with what the user desires. Cargo modules, fuel modules, small craft, vehicle hangers, etc.
Up to 230tons of gear within 30.0m length

Rear section: 4 decks x 10.5m wide x 33.0m long = 305tons
Jump Drive (65tons), Maneuver Thrusters (23tons), Powerplant (37tons), Fuel (180tons) = 305tons


Or something like that Glad to hear you're considering doing the deckplans as part of it. IMO the two (plans and views) need to be done in concert to be properly matched. Looking forward to you take when you get the time
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old November 26th, 2010, 12:35 PM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navanod View Post
The actual text lists room for 17 additional people...

That says to me that possibly the dish is a sensor upgrade for a research variant. So there's a little wriggle room there. Now, just what to do with that blunt square nose....
Fair call on the sensor package being an option Works for me

For the nose, maybe give it a bit of a rake? Slant it back from the top. Or in keeping with the modular squared design form, step it back on each deck?
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 01:07 AM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Default

Just because, not to distract or unduly influence. I was cut-n-paste doodling my ideas for this last week, figured I might as well share the sample for snits-n-giggles



The viewports in the drives section are just an optional idea I was messing with, sort of an emergency backup bridge option.

You'll note I moved the dish (and shrunk it a little) and turrets a bit.

And I implemented the open customizable structure mid section I was thinking made more sense. The tunnel would be used to access any attached bits by installing appropriate hatches.

The forward and aft hulls now have fuel skins of 1.5m all around except the fore and aft faces and where other penetrations require, with more fuel above and below the single deck maneuver thruster section.

I think the tonnage is close to accurate with the measurements listed, and the unshown capacity for modular connections to the middle.

All pretty modular and in the spirit of the original imo.
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 01:35 AM
navanod's Avatar
navanod navanod is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 279
Gallery : 28
navanod Citizen
Default

Okay, I started looking at rearranging things some (mostly just tinkering with primitives to get some ideas) and I guess before I go tearing off down the path, I feel like I should ask one thing first...

How much change to the original layout is acceptable? Are we shooting for minimal changes in both spirit and design, a complete rework keeping the original spirit only, or something in between? Does anyone care or have a particular opinion?

The reason I'm asking is that I can see going both ways with it. One idea I had was moving the bridge to a conning tower-like structure on the front; another was making the bridge (and maybe some other bits) wider than body at the front to give it kind of a hammerhead look. I'm also toying with the idea of starting with the open framework in the middle of the ship and rebuilding it from the keel up. But, I can also see a certain appeal to staying as true as possible to the original dimensions while still trying to make it as interesting as possible.

Opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 01:57 AM
navanod's Avatar
navanod navanod is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 279
Gallery : 28
navanod Citizen
Default

Figures - I start asking questions, and while I'm typing it up, people start giving me answers.

I like it. Neat, simple, and functional.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 02:20 AM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navanod View Post
Figures - I start asking questions, and while I'm typing it up, people start giving me answers.
heh I'm usually the subject of the mind reading, not the Psi

Ultimately you've got to please yourself cause if you don't find it fun and interesting it won't be your best work. That said...

My preference would be for as close to original as possible while fixing any issues and making it more interesting.

However I like the conning tower and hammerhead bridge ideas too.

The firing arcs of the original look like an issue (hence my movement of the turrets). Speaking of which, I thought the dish where I moved it would be a minor annoyance for the turret there (ventral fore), but looking at it fresh now it may be a bigger issue, and I'm thinking either drop it (just 7 hardpoints) or stick it on the front? Or move it back some? Or move the dish forward a little more? Both? I dunno

The original nose dish is probably not a major problem, I just don't much like it

The biggest issue for me is tonnage and element accuracy. Subject to my own 1/2 Rule of Deckplan Drawing (I've got a pdf kindly prepared by another CotI forumite around here somewhere...

...briefly, each component is 1/2 actual installation and 1/2 access/common. The same as the canon explanation for staterooms where a 4ton stateroom should be 2tons of actual room and 2tons of other space (common and access). I generally break the "other" space down into 1/2s again (1/4s of original) with 1/4 access and 1/4 common features. Apply the same rule/guidline to each other discreet element like Maneuver Thrusters, Jump Drive, etc. You might be able to see that on the plan I posted for the drives, not so much for the staterooms as some of the common space is going to have to be on other decks and the crew quarters are more like barracks with each "room" having 4 beds and locating the freshers elsewhere.

I'd be pleased with one that was close enough looking to the original in basic shape and layout to be recognizable as the original reimagined, with correct tonnage of course
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012

Last edited by far-trader; December 3rd, 2010 at 02:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 03:23 AM
navanod's Avatar
navanod navanod is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 279
Gallery : 28
navanod Citizen
Default

Well, it's become apparent to me that the side view from the book that I used is pretty close to worthless, which I suspected anyway so it's no big deal. So, at this point, I think it's going to have to be a rebuild from the keel up. I started with the center section, since that's what everything else is going to be based off of, and started working with the cargo pods and landing pads. I threw together a quickie strut and passage arrangement, which I now see isn't going to work in it's present state...the central passage I made is 1.5 meters high. Hope you like to stoop while boarding the pinnaces. Not a huge problem, just the result of working when I'm getting tired. I was going to throw up some pics to illustrate the issues I'm seeing, but it's sleepy time and they'd just be wrong anyway.

Oh, had a thought about that dish as well...what if we took it off that cylinder thingee and integrated it into the nose? Solves two problems at once. Dunno exactly how yet, but I'll look at it with a fresh view in the morning.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 09:22 AM
Vile's Avatar
Vile Vile is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: LOUIS (2714/Parhelion/Spica)
Posts: 304
Gallery : 4
Vile Citizen
Default

[QUOTE=navanod;363078][...] the central passage I made is 1.5 meters high. Hope you like to stoop while boarding the pinnaces./QUOTE]
That's not a problem - change the grav plate orientation and make it a liftshaft ... or a Jefferies tube ...
__________________
AEONS in the making
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old December 3rd, 2010, 10:56 AM
navanod's Avatar
navanod navanod is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 279
Gallery : 28
navanod Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vile View Post
That's not a problem - change the grav plate orientation and make it a liftshaft ... or a Jefferies tube ...
Interesting idea, but with a 90 degree direction change, things get far more complicated than I like. Unless you make it a tail sitter, in which case you'd have 30+ decks...

One other interesting thing I've noticed. In the picture, the pinnaces dock on the top/bottom, but on the deckplans it shows an outline of them on the sides. Mistake, oversight, or some kind of complicated rotating dock that allows one to climb straight up into the pinnace without messing with the grav plates? Basically loading or unloading one by going up into the boat, then the docks rotate around the central strut to bring the bottom one up into the proper orientation. Because let's face it, if the pinnace docking collar is on the bottom, you go down the ladder, but the boat gravity is 180 degrees different. Or do all of those operations simply take place in zero G so it doesn't matter?
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
New Sectors differ from Judges Guild MacTrom In My Traveller Universe 4 November 26th, 2007 04:54 PM
Judges Guild Traveller Items mshensley The Lone Star 35 August 26th, 2007 07:16 PM
Trav in Judges Guild mags jrients Classic Traveller 33 May 6th, 2006 05:13 PM
Judges Guild jrients Classic Traveller 9 January 2nd, 2006 03:49 AM
Judges Guild Ley? Jame TAS Opinion Polls 4 April 28th, 2005 09:58 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010-2013 Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.