Speculative Traders

[Falkayn]

Well, I've made some more minor changes:
* Added a galley.
* Added an air/raft.
* Added some more hatches/iris valves.
* Added some bulkheads around the passneger area.
* Optionally allow an extra two staterooms to be made into passenger areas.
* Got rid of the 2nd door into the steward's stateroom.
* Tidied up some of the names.
* Added cargo to the pinnace.
* Changed the pinnace airlock to make more sense, and include a locker.

You can still see it here:
Lanthium Petal Class

 

[fluxx_99]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by InfidelX:
Nice deck plan. What did you use to create it?

Thanks! I used Macromedia Fireworks 2. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you have the legend symbols as png objects? if you you do I would very much like to get a copy!

 

[Ran Targas]

One question, if I may:

Have you thought about the distribution of weight inside the hull when loaded vice unloaded?

The center of gravity for any craft operating in an gravity well is critical to performance and, in most cases, flight safety. Unless fuel and cargo are equally distributed fore/aft and port/starboard, your craft will handle like a lopsided paper airplane.

Don't mean to be a wet blanket, I really like the design! Just trying to add a bit of the real world into the equation.

 

[mike wightman]

Grav plates, acceleration compensators, and contra grav take care of all of that

 

[TheDS]

err, no they don't. Grav plates are to keep things from floating, Compensators are to keep them from jerking around under acceleration, and CG is just to negate the gravitational effects of the local massive body. The ship still has mass, else it wouldn't need thrusters. That mass needs to be somewhat evenly distributed.

The typical ways to do this are to have a symetrical design, but this is not absolutely necessary, as long as things do balance out in the end. Ships make use of ballast (often fuel) to distribute the weight where it needs to be, when the differences are minor. Liquid ballast is the most convenient, but it's not unheard of to move physical objects around to balance the weight.

Note that balance must be achieved not just in the left-right, but also the top-bottom. Front-back is less important, unless you want the thing to fly through an atmosphere or an ocean. The bottom should be a bit heavier, so that it's not top-heavy, and therefore doesn't capsize as much.

As to the design of the ship, I have a couple suggestions. First, it is commonly accepted to have 2 people to a stateroom. This will save you about 7 staterooms, which can be used for either passengers (who expect to have a whole stateroom to themselves) or as more cargo.

Next, you should consider to arrange the staterooms so that they are a bit more accessible. When not used to ferry paying passengers, they may be needed to hold incidental cargoes. For this reason, it is a good idea to make them as rectangular as possible, to allow them to be loaded with containers should the need arise. You cannot have too much cargo space.

Thirdly, your cargo space is only 20% of your hull! While I haven't done the calculations, I highly suspect that this ship is going to break the bank of anyone who owns it... you will probably have to charge a lot and do unusual things. For instance, carrying some important people across the sector. The speed of this ship makes it a bargain when comparing the time it would take most other ships trying to do the same thing, but I can't help but wonder if some one is rich enough to afford to pay you to do the transport, are they rich enough to afford to buy their own small ship?

Fourthly, you need a side view of the ship, to give people an idea what they're looking at. You will also find, when you do, that you have room to put in some more fuel tankage, which should handily make up for the fuel tankage you feel you are missing.

And finally, you need e-low berths for ALL expected passengers. That's 18 rounded up to 20 (under current design), not 16, or 21 rounded up to 24 for my suggestion of moving crew around. (Of course, when there are no passengers aboard, crew can spread out if they like.) But the point is, if the situation is dire enough that you have to use low berths, you probably wouldn't want to launch that life boat. (Additionally, you should be sure there is enough lifeboat capacity for 20-24 people.)

Let me also say that your drawing and design philosophy are pretty interesting.

 

[Scarecrow]

I hope you don't mind but I've had a go at some deckplans myself. I was waiting for a phonecall this afternoon so I was bored and started playing about with the volumes and elements you listed in Studio MAX.

I built the elements to the correct volumes and arranged them in Studio MAX and then scribbled some rough plans over the top. here are the end results:



The large image is around 350K and can take a while to load if you're on a dialup.

They're not very clear, so I've labelled everything. They also don't include the pop-up pulses either - oops!

I've also not done much with the pinnace - so it's very vague.

Enjoy

Crow

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Looks like a moth towing a frisbee

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by TheDS:
err, no they don't. Grav plates are to keep things from floating, Compensators are to keep them from jerking around under acceleration, and CG is just to negate the gravitational effects of the local massive body. The ship still has mass, else it wouldn't need thrusters. That mass needs to be somewhat evenly distributed.

I agree, but I think the only problem occurs when you carry NO cargo at all ... and that is a bad idea for Cr reasons. Otherwise cargo can be placed close to the centerline is there is lots, or out near the edge if there is just a little.

Originally posted by TheDS:
As to the design of the ship, I have a couple suggestions. First, it is commonly accepted to have 2 people to a stateroom. This will save you about 7 staterooms, which can be used for either passengers (who expect to have a whole stateroom to themselves) or as more cargo.

But for a frontier speculative trader you don't want people going stir crazy, especially your crew.

Originally posted by TheDS:
Next, you should consider to arrange the staterooms so that they are a bit more accessible. When not used to ferry paying passengers, they may be needed to hold incidental cargoes. For this reason, it is a good idea to make them as rectangular as possible, to allow them to be loaded with containers should the need arise. You cannot have too much cargo space.

That could work, IF you were willing to have staterooms with nice BIG doorways - or assumed you could find lots of small containers of cargo. But in that case using 90% of the rooms is just as good as using 100%, and where will you carry all the blankets to stop the containers scratching the walls?

Originally posted by TheDS:
Thirdly, your cargo space is only 20% of your hull! While I haven't done the calculations, I highly suspect that this ship is going to break the bank of anyone who owns it... you will probably have to charge a lot and do unusual things. For instance, carrying some important people across the sector. The speed of this ship makes it a bargain when comparing the time it would take most other ships trying to do the same thing, but I can't help but wonder if some one is rich enough to afford to pay you to do the transport, are they rich enough to afford to buy their own small ship?

It needs to make 6.48kCr/ton per jump assuming 4 High passengers per jump and two J-3 jumps per month. That is without applying any sort of multiplier to passage costs per parsec - which IMTU happens (but even then it is still over 6kCr/ton). Remember, this is a speculative trader and intended to not so much make a profit on each jump, but rather find/make new trade opportunities for future exploitation by more economical ships. That's also why it will rarely, if ever, carry passengers - more usually it is carrying senior traders/negotiators/product researchers. After all, why have a Lab on a pure trader?

Originally posted by TheDS:
Fourthly, you need a side view of the ship, to give people an idea what they're looking at. You will also find, when you do, that you have room to put in some more fuel tankage, which should handily make up for the fuel tankage you feel you are missing.

Agreed, although there is very little missing. I have a 1cm squared sketch on the back of a receipt here, not sure it's worth scanning ...

Originally posted by TheDS:
And finally, you need e-low berths for ALL expected passengers. That's 18 rounded up to 20 (under current design), not 16, or 21 rounded up to 24 for my suggestion of moving crew around. (Of course, when there are no passengers aboard, crew can spread out if they like.) But the point is, if the situation is dire enough that you have to use low berths, you probably wouldn't want to launch that life boat. (Additionally, you should be sure there is enough lifeboat capacity for 20-24 people.)

Well the lifeboat was my fault, they didn't fit the deckplans, so I designed it for 14 ... it could easily have enough, and I will consider changing it. The on-board low berths are more intended to be if the ship needed to put everyone into stasis - in that case you might have lost some crew already, or not be carrying full passengers, or have draw lots to wait outside for help. But then there are also the ones on the life-boat, so ... maybe there are too many?

Originally posted by TheDS:
Let me also say that your drawing and design philosophy are pretty interesting.

Thanks, I think ...

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I hope you don't mind but I've had a go at some deckplans myself. I was waiting for a phonecall this afternoon so I was bored and started playing about with the volumes and elements you listed in Studio MAX.

I built the elements to the correct volumes and arranged them in Studio MAX and then scribbled some rough plans over the top. here are the end results:

Wow! Thanks Crow, it's interesting seeing what a pro would do with the design.

I like the way you're heading, although it does bear a resemblance to a moth towing something. From a gaming viewpoint, it departs from the feel of existing Traveller designs too much for me to use it with my players ( ) ... although it fits a Firefly style universe very well.

One of the things your design has pointed out to me is how little recreation space I'm giving the passengers. That fits the primary purpose of the design, but makes me wonder if passengers would be willing to put up with cramped space for the duration of an interstellar voyage (minimum one week duration). Perhaps the fact that it is a Jump-3 ship would make up for it - and the fact that it will probably go places that a typical high Jump liner would not.

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
From a gaming viewpoint, it departs from the feel of existing Traveller designs too much for me to use it with my players

That's...actually quite flattering

Glad you like,

Crow

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
That's...actually quite flattering

It should be!

I will however make an attempt at drawing some sort of external view of my current deckplan, just to keep people here happy if nothing else.

[I do like the Traveller designs, especially Bryan Gibson's work, but they depart from more modern sci-fi art significantly in their simplicity.]

 

[TheDS]

It was intended as a compliment, of sorts, I suppose. Not sure I like it or not, but it doesn't suck, and it doesn't grab me by the short hairs like Scarecrow's design did when I first laid eyes on it.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by TheDS:
It was intended as a compliment, of sorts, I suppose. Not sure I like it or not, but it doesn't suck, and it doesn't grab me by the short hairs like Scarecrow's design did when I first laid eyes on it.

Thanks again then. It IS my first deckplan, but probably not my last. I like the clean look that Peter Vernon and Michael taylor's deckplans have, so that's what I was looking for.

In terms of design, I just wanted something that didn't make ME wince when I looked at it, although having gotten some feedback I can see what I will bear in mind for future designs.

But I never expect to come up with a design like Crow's, partly because I just ain't that good, and partly because my players are looking for nice simple deckplans they can easily get their heads around when playing (and that LOOK like Traveller deckplans).

 

[Falkayn]

Lanthium Lifeboat Class Lifeboat
Designed by: Falkayn

Statistics:
10-ton Hull (Close Structure) - Partially Streamlined
AC: 13 (9 vs. Meson Guns) AR: 1 (TL-13) SI: 75 Initiative: 1
Starship Size: Small Cost: 3.452 MCr (4.315 MCr without discount)
Model/1 (PP: 28/11) Computer Avionics: Less than 600-ton Sensors: Close Range Communications: Close Range
Cargo: 0.15-tons
Annual Maintenance = .345 KCr (.173 KCr if routinely maintained)
Routine Maintenance = .086 KCr/Month (.863 KCr per year)

Performance:
Acceleration: 1-G Agility: 1
Power Plant: TL-13 Fusion ( EP output, enough fuel for 24 weeks)
Atmospheric Speeds: NOE = 875kph Cruising = 2,625kph Maximum = 3,500kph

Accomodations & Fittings:
6x Emergency Low Berth (24 People)
1x Small Craft Couch (1 Crew)
1x Airlock

Crew Details:
1x Pilot

Description:
Supplied with each Lanthium Petal, these lifeboats are intended to offer a final solution in the event that the ship must be evacuated. Intended as much as anything else to highlight the 'frontier' nature of the Lanthium Petal class, some ship's captains replace the lifeboat with either a dedicated recreation area for passengers, additional garage space or additional cargo space, depending upon their priorities.

[NOTE: Yes, I know the deckplans don't show 24 emergency low berths ... use your imagination (stacked 2 high?).]

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
It IS my first deckplan, but probably not my last. I like the clean look that Peter Vernon and Michael taylor's deckplans have, so that's what I was looking for.

As I mentioned previously, you definately got that. And if the plans work for you and your players, that's all that really matters.
My only real gripe with the plans, again, as I've already mentioned is that the layout feels a little random and also as with too many Traveller plans, everything is neatly divided into 3 meter high slivers. I definately feel that a lot of deckplan designers need to try and think in the third dimension a bit more. Jump Drives, cargo bays and Fuel tanks don't need to be restricted to 3 meter high slivers. Nothing does really, though most habitable sections work fine with that.
There was a superb article on the web which dealt with designing deckplans for Star Wars D6 but the principles applied equally to any Starship deckplan design really and I'd highly recommend it to anyone thinking of designing a ship for an RPG. Sadly, I can't find it. I think it's been taken down. I have a hard copy. If I can get the author's permission, I'll try and host it myself and post a link.

Crow

 

[Ran Targas]

Crow,

Man! I like that design!! Thank you, I'm always hoping to see more diversity in Trav ship designs. Maybe you can attribute it's unique style to a particular race or cultural influence?

 

[Scarecrow]

I guess you could. I don't really subscribe to the idea that there is a 'Traveller style' - Traveller was a generic sci-fi rule set and so, was never intended to have it's own indigenous style and every artist who has drawn a ship illustration or set of deckplans has their own unique style too. Bryan Gibson's excellent ship designs are very different from the CT illustrations in feel and quality. I like the idea that there is in actuality a vast and varying degree of styles of ship in the Traveller universe. Whilst Imperial ships would be built under a contract and would look pretty much the same, there are thousands of inhabited worlds and thousands of different commercial architects and shipyards. All of these would have their own particular style to varying degrees. Also, regardless of how a ship looks, it's still built to the same volumes and components as any other.
It's rather shameful of me, especially being 35 but my first objective when I'm designing a ship is to make it look 'kewl' - or if not that then at least make it look interesting. Of course, wether I succeed or not is a matter of personal opinion really. However, I try to then make form follow function and fudge back and forth between the two. I'm rambling now. I should really write an article on the subject. It might be of use to someone.

Crow

 

[daibaka]

An article along those lines could be of immense value to anybody who is interested in designing ships for Traveller (or any other sci-fi RPG). It would definitely get a big thumbs up from me!

Even better would be a collection of articles or short essays by the various deckplan and ship design guru's on the board describing what they aim for when they set to work.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I definately feel that a lot of deckplan designers need to try and think in the third dimension a bit more. Jump Drives, cargo bays and Fuel tanks don't need to be restricted to 3 meter high slivers. Nothing does really, though most habitable sections work fine with that.

OK, I was mulling this over in the shower this morning, and 2 pooints occurred to me:

1. One of the problems with your design for the Petal is that it isn't streamlined, not even slightly. This would be OK, except this beast can do Mach 4 in atmosphere, and flies NOE around MACH 1 !!! It isn't even an airframed design, because the THB states that a flattened sphere is streamlined enough without it.

2. If you look at real world objects that are similar to starships (aircraft, liners, boats, space shuttle) they are designed around standard height 'slivers' - it both makes the design simpler and makes it easier to live in and around. Some objects don't fit within those slivers, but for the most part they are handled by opening up more than one deck, or attaching outside the craft. Given Traveller's TL you could have a design that violated those principles, but at a premium price.

I think that approaching ship design from a game design standpoint leads to a need for it to look interesting first and foremost and only later to actually be useful, or functional. I think the design you've done for the Petal is a great design if it wasn't intended to enter atmosphere (and is probably a much better starting point for a streamlined design than my own work), but even then, there is no engineer I know that would stick the bridge out on the end of a stick unless they had some compelling reason to do so - it just begs for nature to take advantage of the weakness there.

 

[Scarecrow]

Fair comments all.

You're right, I do approach ship design visually first and foremost, 'kewlness' wins over realistic physics for me any day of the week. Hence the wierd bridge design regardless of the physical reality of it. I know this is a bad thing for many Traveller ship designers but it works for me.

The images I've done don't have the hull over them. They are the skeletal layout of the ship sections. It's my intention to put a smooth, curved hull over those elements making it streamlined. Well, as streamlined as any other Traveller ship anyway.

Crow