If I'm calculating things correctly, it takes 8 deck squares (4 tons) per console to achieve an Ergonomics rating of 5 with a bridge?? That seems a bit large.
Ship Ergonomics
- Thread starter Spartan159
- Start date
Yep.
As a Naval Architect nothing agrravates me more than trying to get positive Ergonomics numbers out of my ships.
As far as has been discussed it seems like you need around 5 tons per person to get a decent Ergonomic rating.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Also, that probably qualifies as a Spacious Bridge too.
As a Naval Architect nothing agrravates me more than trying to get positive Ergonomics numbers out of my ships.
As far as has been discussed it seems like you need around 5 tons per person to get a decent Ergonomic rating.
Remember, deck plans usually work with 1.33 (two meters) ceiling. A ton is therefore 3 squares. 3 tons will give you 9 squares.
an issue not explictly mentionned, could we segment the ergonomic? If I have a crappy emergency bridge, do those consoles and their cramped space count in the overall computation? I would say that each working space has its own ergonomic....but then I am an heretic.
have fun
Selandia
Yes, separate spaces can have separate ergonomic ratings. The typical case is that there is one control space ("bridge") with shared ergonomics.
But you can have engineering controls in a cramped engineering room, a fire control room separate from the bridge with spacious stations, or individual fire control stations each with their own ergonomic ratings, and so on. ("Bridge" is minimally defined in T5, allowing other control spaces even in typical cases).
That may be a commonly used metric but it is not stated anywhere in T5 that I can see, whereas I do see the total squares as expressed on page 275 imply a 3 meter deck height, and in the Deck Plans For Starships section on page 288 is stated directly.
In the ergonomics equation on page 310 it states: F= Free Space (in deck squares). The total deck squares occupied by the Consoles (= total Console Tonnage x2). Further down the same page: Designing for Ergonomics Assign console tonnage (at 0.5 tons per desired adjacent deck square) based on the desired level of Ergonomics.
My point being that someone starting Traveller with T5 is going to see what's in the book/pdf, and work with that.
Page 521 has TL stage effects modifying console size, not sure what that would do.
I don't think that a spacious control console should require more space to achieve a 5 ergonomic rating, that's a standard stateroom worth of access right there.
While I'm at it, on page 284 it states: The Benefits Of A Bridge. If a ship has a Bridge, then its Control Ergonomics Mod is increased +2. This should be repeated on page 310 IMO.
true
and I will use 1 dt=2 square in space that require 10 feet high room.
but you are right and the point well done, there is no indications of a 1.3 cube as standard height while there are indication of 1 dton= 2 squares in console specific instructions.
Errata needed?
have fun
Selandia
For what it's worth I think that even accounting for overhead/underfoot plumbing etc etc it's still a lot of wasted space. Is there a reason we stick with 1.5 meter squares, given that we are using range bands anyway for combat? Perhaps we could to move to 1 meter squares?
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Four 1.5 meter cubes (1.5 X 1.5 X 1.5 meters) represents a close approximation of the volume of one metric ton of liquid hydrogen. at 13.5 cubic meters. The true volume of one metric ton of Liquid Hydrogen is approximately 14.11 cubic meters, or 498 cubic feet. Four 5 foot cubes (5 X 5 X 5 feet) would be closer at 500 cubic feet, but they decided to go with the metric approximation of 1.5 meters is approximately 5 feet.
Thanks for the data. Learned the bit about Liquid Hydrogen earlier as it happens. Mostly just grousing about mapping deck plans. At 14 cubic meters we could go with 2m high by 3.5m long by 3.5m wide per ton, but then we would have to draw in the "overhead" air ducts to sneak through.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I think you're permitted to be more creative with how you use the volume; a ship designed by and for Hobbits won't need that much ceiling overhead, and airlocks may be circular openings.
When I woke up this morning my brain kicked in and the thought occurred to me that 3.5 is not divisible evenly by 1.5. Oops. At a height of 2.33 you get just a hair over 3 meters by 3 meters on a deck plan. 4.5 x 4.5 with a Hobbit ceiling of 1.55 meters. :coffeesip:
Not that it will happen at this stage anyway. :CoW:
Not that it will happen at this stage anyway. :CoW:
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Thanks for the data. Learned the bit about Liquid Hydrogen earlier as it happens. Mostly just grousing about mapping deck plans. At 14 cubic meters we could go with 2m high by 3.5m long by 3.5m wide per ton, but then we would have to draw in the "overhead" air ducts to sneak through.
2 X 3.5 X 3.5 = 24.5, considerably larger than 14 meters.
The standard deckplan sizes from various editions:
TNE: 2x2x3.5 = 14 cubic meters
others:
A bunch of plans in MgT were drawn at 1 square = 1 Td, but claimed to be 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m plans... make them 2x2x3.5, and they work fine...
The revised printing corrected some of these.
TNE: 2x2x3.5 = 14 cubic meters
others:
- 1.5 x 3 x 3 = 13.5; 1.5 x 1.5 x 3m deck squares, 2 per Td MT standard, CT plans excluding interdeck bulkheads
- 1.5 x 3 x 3.1 = 13.95; 1.5 x 1.5 x 3.1m squares, 2 per Td. - note: includes 10cm of deck, so is 3.1 decktop to decktop, with 3m clearance deck to overhead. Based upon CT Sup 7 side views.
- 1.5 x 4.5 x 2 = 13.5 deck to overhead.
1.5 x 1.5 x 2m per square, 3 squares per Td. This is the apparent scaling of most of Bill Keith's deckplans, including the Type S and Type J in CT Sup 7... And it makes the Bk2 design tonanges work with the plans.
Going to 2.1 m tall takes it to 14.175, and allows decktop to decktop. - At least one published plan works out to 1.25 x 3.75 x 2.5 = 11.72... using 1.25 x 1.25 x 2.5 m squares, and 3.5 squares per Td. Going to 2.6m tall takes it to about 14.22 cubic meters.
A bunch of plans in MgT were drawn at 1 square = 1 Td, but claimed to be 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m plans... make them 2x2x3.5, and they work fine...
The revised printing corrected some of these.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I thought the volume actually is supposed to be fourteen cubic metres.
Is that game convenience or real world measurement of hydrogen?
Is that game convenience or real world measurement of hydrogen?
13.5 cubic meters is the game convenience, 14.11 or so cubic meters is the real world volume for liquid hydrogen.
And yes Timerover51, I fubar the math pretty hard there.
And yes Timerover51, I fubar the math pretty hard there.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
13.5 cubic meters is the game convenience, 14.11 or so cubic meters is the real world volume for liquid hydrogen.
And yes Timerover51, I fubar the math pretty hard there.
As I have a lot of data on shipping volume and required volume which is in English measurements, I simply use a dTon displacement of 500 cubic feet to make the math much easier.
Example, one ton of balanced non-perishable rations requires 94 cubic feet of shipping space, so 5 tons of balanced non-perishable rations may be carried per Traveller dTon. For converting Traveller ship volume into wet ship volume, one Traveller dTon equals 5 gross register tons or 12.5 measurement tons or 14.28 displacement tons.
For standard, easily handled shipping crates, I use 5 X 5 X 10 foot, for 250 cubic feet, with two per Traveller dTon. With an allowable load of 2.5 tons per crate, readily handled by a commercial fork-lift truck, the crates can be unloaded easily at any star port down to E-class, and with a fork-lift on the Free Trader (or whatever cargo ship you are using), can be landed at an X-class star port. The crates can be stacked and tied together as well. With the proper unloading equipment, the load per crate can be increased to 5 tons.
