MT: Robots e-book

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

It been a while, but I've just purchased the MT: Robots (MT: R) product offered over at DriveThruRPG.com. I picked the Starship Maintenance Robot data sheet on p. 5 to test the design process and seem to be confused from the very start. I checked the design example in the Travellers' Digest Number 13 and Don McKinney's article: A MegaTraveller Starship Design Example Revisited V2.02, Updated 03/05/2008 to verify that I had the right idea on how to read the data sheet.

Per page 5 the Starship Maintenance Robot has a Displacement (UCP?) of 0.0196 and a volume of 371 liters. Using the Size table on MT: R p. 20 I cross referenced the Displacement of of 0.0196 which showed that the volume should be between 250 and 299 liters. Cross referencing on the volume of 371 liters has a UCP (Displacement?) is 0.026.

So, am I out to lunch on the design from the start?

Tom R

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Hello all,

It been a while, but I've just purchased the MT: Robots (MT: R) product offered over at DriveThruRPG.com. I picked the Starship Maintenance Robot data sheet on p. 5 to test the design process and seem to be confused from the very start. I checked the design example in the Travellers' Digest Number 13 and Don McKinney's article: A MegaTraveller Starship Design Example Revisited V2.02, Updated 03/05/2008 to verify that I had the right idea on how to read the data sheet.

Per page 5 the Starship Maintenance Robot has a Displacement (UCP?) of 0.0196 and a volume of 371 liters. Using the Size table on MT: R p. 20 I cross referenced the Displacement of of 0.0196 which showed that the volume should be between 250 and 299 liters. Cross referencing on the volume of 371 liters has a UCP (Displacement?) is 0.026.

So, am I out to lunch on the design from the start?

Tom R

No you're right and the listing is wrong. UCP 0.0196 is 274.8 l, and UCO 0.026 is 351 l.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Many apologies, Ewan is right, the displacement figure is wrong. The 'loads of robots' link in my signature takes you to a download of 108 designs including all of the examples I selected for the book. I stared at those figures for so long I've no doubt that errors have crept in!

Having said this, the UCP figure of displacement tons is a minor detail in the scheme of things. For any craft design, it is simply total kL / 13.5 or L / 13500. The main benefit for including the figure is a quick comparison to the size of craft in our standard Traveller lexicon. For craft design, litres and kilolitres are the queen of hull selection.

I'll check the source of the error when I get a chance.

 

[snrdg082102]

No you're right and the listing is wrong. UCP 0.0196 is 274.8 l, and UCO 0.026 is 351 l.

Best regards,

Ewan

Evening Ewan,

Thanks for the reply and confirming that I wasn't out to lunch. ;-)


Tom R

 

[snrdg082102]

Many apologies, Ewan is right, the displacement figure is wrong. The 'loads of robots' link in my signature takes you to a download of 108 designs including all of the examples I selected for the book. I stared at those figures for so long I've no doubt that errors have crept in!

Having said this, the UCP figure of displacement tons is a minor detail in the scheme of things. For any craft design, it is simply total kL / 13.5 or L / 13500. The main benefit for including the figure is a quick comparison to the size of craft in our standard Traveller lexicon. For craft design, litres and kilolitres are the queen of hull selection.

I'll check the source of the error when I get a chance.

Evening OjnoTheRed,

Thank you also for the reply and the link to the robot catalog.

I agree that the Displacement/UCP is a minor detail in the scheme of things. Unfortunately, I dislike not being able to recreate a design using the construction system. In an effort to work through the example I created a no frills spreadsheet that can be used work from a given Volume to a UCP/Size/Displ, Weight, and Price. A standard and non-standard UCP/Size/Displ can also be entered to get the factor, per MT: RM p. 62 to determine volume, weight, and price.

Another silly question which might be more errata. The Elite Valet on MT: R p. 33 has a Config=AUS. MT: R p. 20 1-3 Configuration table has Type codes of C = Contoured and B = Pseudo-biological.

Should the Contoured Type code be A instead of C in the Configuration table on MT: R p. 20?

Tom R

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Thanks again - yes, it should read "CUS" not "AUS". This was because I originally put "A" for "Contoured" and "B" for "Pseudo-bio" but then adopted Rob Prior's "C" for "Contoured" and "B" for "Pseudo-bio". But, of course, forgot to update some of the designs!

Having re-read my previous post, sorry, that "minor detail" comment sounded like a bit of a crack at you. Many apologies. What I was trying to get across was some encouragement to say that you're on the right track, just go with the volume over the UCP dTon figure and it should work out.

I'll make changes as necessary to the spreadsheet and update it on my box.net account.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

OK, one more post.

Firstly, I found the source of the error in relation to UCP displacement. The particular robot concerned has a base hull volume of 265 litres. This was the basis of calculating dTons for the UCP value of 0.0196 (= 265 / 13500). But one must add the turret (i.e. head) at 40% which gives 265 x 1.4 = 371 litres. This latter figure gives the actual dTons displacement of 0.0275. I have updated the calculations for all robots to reflect volume of the hull including the head rather than excluding it as before.

Secondly, designating the configs as AUS was a mistake for all contoured robots in the spreadsheet! I've updated it universally to CUS.

Lastly, it should be noted that I simply cut-and-paste from the calculated design evaluations in this spreadsheet straight into the supplement. So the evaluations are automatically updated in the spreadsheet that is linked in my signature block. Feel free to download and have a look. I've uploaded the updated version. By way of a guide, the designs chosen for the supplement (to represent an example of several different kinds of design) can be found as follows:

p. 5 Starship Maintenance Robot - sheet "33. Starport Mechanic Robot"
p. 7 Animal Care Robot - sheet "1. Animal Care Robot"
p. 9 Imperial Raider Drone - sheet "109. Robot Raider" (well, yes, I was busily watching my Battlestar Galactica DVD collection when designing this one! So say we all.)
p. 10 Automated Scout - sheet "108. Automated Scout"
p. 12 Janitor Bot - sheet "7. Janitorbot"
p. 13 Agricultural Slave Robot - sheet "49. Agricultural Slave Robot"
p. 14 Agricultural Master Robot - sheet "50. Agricultural Master Robot"
p. 15 Security Robot - sheet "70. Security Robot"
p. 18 Basic Bartender Bot - sheet "3. Bartender Bot"
p. 19 Undersea Harvester Robot - sheet "12. Undersea Harvester Robot"
p. 33 Elite Valet / Rashush Model 1 - sheet "62. Rashush Model 1"
p. 36 Prospector Robot - sheet "54. Prospector Robot"

The spreadsheet is in OpenDocument spreadsheet format (*.ods) which also opens in Microsoft Excel 2007 and 2010 (I can't vouch for earlier versions). The spreadsheet contains transparent calculations for a total of 111 designs plus full design evaluations for each robot. Enjoy!

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning OjnoTheRed,

Good thing I asked about the coding for the Robot Configurations since I'm also working on an Excel 2000 spreadsheet, okay another one ;-), for the vehicle sized robots. I had already entered CUS as the code.

I didn't think the comment of "minor detail" was a crack against me, so there is no issue or apologies needed. I'm one of the types that like to be able to recreate an established design using the games construction sequence. If my efforts return a different result than the example I'm using I try to figure out what is out of whack. In this case I hadn't figured out where I was off track.

Also thanks for the errata update and link to the Rech System write-up. Unfortunately, I'm not rich enough to upgrade my MS Office Suite 2000 to anything more up to date. I haven't been able to open the Open Office file extension so I may have to get Open Office.

Tom R

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I haven't been able to open the Open Office file extension so I may have to get Open Office.

Mwa ha ha ha ha. All part of my dastardly plan to get you all to use an open rather than proprietary format. Now I can lock you into my business plan to get you to use software for free! Wait, there's a weakness in this plan I haven't seen yet ...

More seriously. This is a PDF version of the same thing (it's about 750Kb). One calculation / robot evaluation per page, just so you can at least see the figures.

 

[snrdg082102]

Mwa ha ha ha ha. All part of my dastardly plan to get you all to use an open rather than proprietary format. Now I can lock you into my business plan to get you to use software for free! Wait, there's a weakness in this plan I haven't seen yet ...

More seriously. This is a PDF version of the same thing (it's about 750Kb). One calculation / robot evaluation per page, just so you can at least see the figures.

Not a weakness from my point of view;-). I'm not in a position to upgrade to the latest MS product. Unfortunately, I've got a few items created in Word and Excel. I discovered I wasn't very good at using Access, except during a class where the example actually worked. When I tried on my own things didn't work as well.

Thanks for the link to the updated 100+ Robots PDF document, unfortunately the button to download the file on the web page appears to be broken. Here is what happens:

I tried downloading from the link "This" is a PDF version the download button showing (745.5 KB). After downloading was completed I hit the Open button and got an error message saying that the file couldn't be opened or fixed. The icon showed a file size of 75 KB.

Selecting the Save as button in IE the file is saved with a size of 745 KB and opens just fine.

I downloaded the document that is linked to "And loads of robots" by clicking on the download (783.4 KB) yesterday without a problem.

Trying to reverse engineer something like the Starship Maintenance Robot using the data provided in MT: R usually has me asking questions. The 108 Robots document you provide is a real big help, since I can verify my numbers to ensure I've got the hang of the design sequence. In this case I forgot that the head (turret) added to the total volume.

Thank you for the work you put into ensuring that someone like me can actually follow the steps instead of guessing.


Tom R

 

[snrdg082102]

MT: Robots e-books + Loads of Robots

Morning OjnoTheRed,

I think I may have found some more "minor" errata in either the Robot supplement or the Load of Robots document.

The TL12 Starport Mechanic Robot om MT: R p. 5 has a Configuration=3US which is for an unstreamlined cylinder.

In the Loads of Robots document the Config Notes column lists 'Box' and the UCP column has "3US". The Configuration Price mod = 1 which supports an unstreamlined cylinder.

If the design is an unstreamlined Box Config then the UCP should be 4US and the Configuration Price Mod = 0.6.

Being a lazy sort I'd opt for changing the Loads of Robots from Box to Cylinder.

 

[snrdg082102]

Afternoon OjnoTheRed,

Possible 'minor' Errata for MT: Robots supplement and/or the And loads of Robots document:

The TL12 Starport Mechanic Robot om MT: R p. 5 has a Configuration=3US which is for an unstreamlined cylinder.

In the And Loads of Robots document the Config Notes column lists 'Box' and the UCP column has "3US". The Configuration Price mod = 1 which supports a cylinder that is unstreamlined.

If the design is an unstreamlined Box Config then the UCP should be 4US and the Configuration Price Mod = 0.6.

Being a lazy sort I'd opt for changing the Loads of Robots from Box to Cylinder.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Hi again. I've gone through the spreadsheets, and there were a few configurations that were mis-labelled. In general, the Config code (3US in your example) is more reliable than the label, but there were a couple of errors the other way. That is to say, the Config Code would match the actual hull multipliers used almost every time, except for a couple of times where they matched the description. In all cases I have adjusted the config description / code to match the actual figures used rather than unbalance the designs again. I went blind staring at them!

I've updated the spreadsheet (which you can get from my signature block), and also the PDF which is located here.

 

[snrdg082102]

Top of the Morning (PDT) OjnoTheRed,

Well now I'm even more confused than my normal state because the "And loads of robots" downloaded as Robot_1.9.pdf PDF. The link for "MegaTraveller Robot Supplement" sends me to DriveThruRPG.

Should I be posting the stuff I see as possible errata here or send them to some other location?

I tried twice to send you a PM on 9/17 using the message screen linked to your user profile.

Have you seen either message?

Hopefully, I'm not causing any problems so I'll make the request here. The answer is either yes or no.

Is there a possibility that I can get a working copy of the Robot construction spreadsheet?

My request has a couple reasons which are:

1. To have an example of how the OpenOffice spreadsheet application works.

2. Verify that I have an understanding of how the construction process works.

3. Verify that I was on the right track with the Excel 2000 spreadsheet being created from MT: Robots.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Just posting this quickly from my mobile phone. I'll check the links tonight (my time - about 12 hours from now), obviously I've made a mistake there!

I've also e-mailed you in reply to your message on my profile, hope that was helpful.

 

[snrdg082102]

Just posting this quickly from my mobile phone. I'll check the links tonight (my time - about 12 hours from now), obviously I've made a mistake there!

I've also e-mailed you in reply to your message on my profile, hope that was helpful.

Evening OjnoTheRed,

No hurry about the link, I'm a retired boomer (ballistic missile) sailor that went four knots to nowhere so when the link is fixed it will work correctly.

Yep, I got the email and replied. Usually I'm more patient but I did have some problems with the site when I tried posting to the forums and the PM.

Be assured that I'll probably be dropping you some emails asking for help. Thanks again for the supplement and answering my questions.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

OK, I've fixed the link in my signature - the loads of robots now points to the *.ods version (i.e. OpenOffice Calc) instead of a previous version of the PDF.

The latest PDF link is still above.

 

[snrdg082102]

OK, I've fixed the link in my signature - the loads of robots now points to the *.ods version (i.e. OpenOffice Calc) instead of a previous version of the PDF.

The latest PDF link is still above.

Yep, the file now has an ods extension. However, since I haven't customized any of the setting the macros are disabled. I know where to go, interesting change usually someone tells me where to go;-), and change the settings.

The spreadsheet looks good. Unfortunately, I not clear on where to enter the parameters by just looking at the tab. Sorry, I'm not a really awake yet and haven't had my first cup of coffee.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Thanks - I'm glad you like the spreadsheet! Many hours of staring at it, and sometimes asking myself: why am I determined to put more than 100 robots from Classic Traveller into the new proposed ruleset? It was all about a kind of play-test of the rules, of course.

Each sheet isn't a complete solution for filling in the template and getting your own solution. I coped with so many designs by liberal copying and pasting and then modifying the new sheet to the new design.

Rather, each entry is more or less manual. So, for each component, you enter the volume it consumes, its weight (or more correctly, mass), power consumed, price, etc. As I identified more things to be counted (e.g. CPU / storage space provided by the brain and taken by software, etc. etc.) I added more columns.

Each column has a sum total in the yellow area at the top. You will notice also in the two yellow rows that the first yellow row is labelled "Left" and the second is labelled "Totals:". The "Left" row is for columns where it helped to keep track of what was left from any column that "provided" something. Obviously the classic case is volume - of the volume provided by the specified hull, how much is left to install further components? I always filled the remaining volume with fuel to maximise endurance.

If you scroll to the right you will see UPP statistics, damage, locomotion evaluation and fuel / endurance information as calculated.

The UCP column is referenced by the design evaluation at the bottom of each spreadsheet. The design evaluation is frankly not that clever, it's just a series of Concatenate functions to tie together the various bits and pieces of information in the spreadsheet. This allowed the design evaluation to be automatically updated for minor changes, but adding new rows means editing the design evaluation formulae to ensure all new components are included.

The "Number" column is used frequently where there is more than one of any particular component, and usually I then used it as a multiplier for the standard weights, volumes, etc.

One thing to note. Each section of the robot has a sub-total row. Note that for the hull, the sub-totals are the product of all the elements of the hull (i.e. base hull multiplied by armour factor, multiplied by configuration factors, and so on). The remaining row sub-totals are based on the sum of all elements, although I decided at some point it would be easier just to take a control point sub-total for each section as this is required by the Referee's Manual design sequence for working out crew requirements and is technically still required for robots even though I haven't bothered working it out.

Following on from that, and lastly, vehicle sized robots (i.e. less than 20 dTons / 270 kL) still need to compute redundant gunners and commander (the operator is replaced by the brain) to ensure that there is sufficient control provided. If anyone applies the formulae to a design and finds that some of the robots still need gunners and/or commanders as crew, let me know!

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning OjnoTheRed,

Thanks for the down and dirty users guide, which will speed things up.

I'd send you one of my Excel spreadsheets but I've found that OpenOffice, from some people you tried to open one, breaks them. So another future task is to convert some of them from Excel to Calc the old fashioned way by one line at a time.