Technical Architecture for CT

[robject]

Providing detailed design layers in support of Traveller is a strength of Traveller.

I'd like a CT technical architecture. Beyond High Guard -- although HG is the place to start -- something that could be adapted for use in designing modules. A component design system, or systems, for the gearheads.

The component design system(s) would generate components or modules, which the rest of us could use in building guns, vehicles, and starships for the Classic Traveller universe. I'm going to concentrate on starship design. In particular, Book 2.

What I'd like to know is what technical design system -- MT's design system, FFS, FFS2, or something else -- can be used as a layer for creating modular components.

Take Book 2. It's a set of finished components for small starships. I would like it to be the output of a technical architecture system, perhaps close to the level of Fire, Fusion, and Steel.

What, in your opinion, should be used to design components? How close can such a system come to actually producing the charts in Book 2?

I doubt Book 2 necessarily ought to be slavishly adhered to; on the other hand, there are some key defining traditions that I think really ought to be preserved: for instance, the Type A Free Trader ought to have a Jump Drive A, Maneuver Drive A, Power Plant A, Model/1 computer, and cost around MCr37.

 

[robject]

Providing detailed design layers in support of Traveller is a strength of Traveller.

I'd like a CT technical architecture. Beyond High Guard -- although HG is the place to start -- something that could be adapted for use in designing modules. A component design system, or systems, for the gearheads.

The component design system(s) would generate components or modules, which the rest of us could use in building guns, vehicles, and starships for the Classic Traveller universe. I'm going to concentrate on starship design. In particular, Book 2.

What I'd like to know is what technical design system -- MT's design system, FFS, FFS2, or something else -- can be used as a layer for creating modular components.

Take Book 2. It's a set of finished components for small starships. I would like it to be the output of a technical architecture system, perhaps close to the level of Fire, Fusion, and Steel.

What, in your opinion, should be used to design components? How close can such a system come to actually producing the charts in Book 2?

I doubt Book 2 necessarily ought to be slavishly adhered to; on the other hand, there are some key defining traditions that I think really ought to be preserved: for instance, the Type A Free Trader ought to have a Jump Drive A, Maneuver Drive A, Power Plant A, Model/1 computer, and cost around MCr37.

 

[mike wightman]

The Brilliant Lances Technical Booklet is a good example of how FF&S could be distilled down to a simpler ship assembly system.
It is still a quite a bit more complicated than LBB2 or even High Guard however

You'd probably have to try and abstract away, or ignore, one or two of the design parameters at least IMHO.

CT ship design only has two factors to track, tonnage and cost.
HG2 introduces one more in energy points.

MT takes a stab at adding mass as a variable, even though it doesn't really matter much in the ship design system.

FF&S has surface area added to the mix.

So if you start with something like FF&S as your module design system you have to abstract away several of the design elements as you go back up the chain.

 

[mike wightman]

The Brilliant Lances Technical Booklet is a good example of how FF&S could be distilled down to a simpler ship assembly system.
It is still a quite a bit more complicated than LBB2 or even High Guard however

You'd probably have to try and abstract away, or ignore, one or two of the design parameters at least IMHO.

CT ship design only has two factors to track, tonnage and cost.
HG2 introduces one more in energy points.

MT takes a stab at adding mass as a variable, even though it doesn't really matter much in the ship design system.

FF&S has surface area added to the mix.

So if you start with something like FF&S as your module design system you have to abstract away several of the design elements as you go back up the chain.

 

[Uncle Bob]

My main problem with FF&S (and even MT) was that I could get just as good items by making variations on the cannon items. It took much less time, and when working with TL 5-8 was actually more likely to approach RW compoments.

MT and FF&S are proof that extra levels of complexity don't necessarily lead to either a more accurate or more useful system.

 

[Uncle Bob]

My main problem with FF&S (and even MT) was that I could get just as good items by making variations on the cannon items. It took much less time, and when working with TL 5-8 was actually more likely to approach RW compoments.

MT and FF&S are proof that extra levels of complexity don't necessarily lead to either a more accurate or more useful system.

 

[robject]

Bob, I know exactly what you're talking about: complexity doesn't automatically buy us anything, and is usually just vain wheel-spinning. It often smells like legislative loopholing, if you know what I mean.

What I'm looking for is ideas for technical, low-level design, which satisfies some degree of gearheading, and which also feeds directly into the library of components one can pick up and use in ship design. It's as if you could use FFS or MT to design modules rather than starships.

In other words, I want to harness gearhead energy for the good of all. This is a win-win.

The test of such a system is that it would be used to generate the exact modules found in Book 2... with some reasonable exceptions, probably (note that the higher-order drive letters act as though they have some efficiency term coming into play).


Sigg, this would probably mean there would be perhaps 3 visible outputs of such a design system: volume, cost, and energy.

 

[robject]

Bob, I know exactly what you're talking about: complexity doesn't automatically buy us anything, and is usually just vain wheel-spinning. It often smells like legislative loopholing, if you know what I mean.

What I'm looking for is ideas for technical, low-level design, which satisfies some degree of gearheading, and which also feeds directly into the library of components one can pick up and use in ship design. It's as if you could use FFS or MT to design modules rather than starships.

In other words, I want to harness gearhead energy for the good of all. This is a win-win.

The test of such a system is that it would be used to generate the exact modules found in Book 2... with some reasonable exceptions, probably (note that the higher-order drive letters act as though they have some efficiency term coming into play).


Sigg, this would probably mean there would be perhaps 3 visible outputs of such a design system: volume, cost, and energy.

 

[robject]

Bob, my main problem with MT, FFS, and FFS2 is that it crossed my patience threshold. I didn't want to get all fiddly with the numbers. Boring, boring, boring! Made me feel like an accountant.

 

[robject]

Bob, my main problem with MT, FFS, and FFS2 is that it crossed my patience threshold. I didn't want to get all fiddly with the numbers. Boring, boring, boring! Made me feel like an accountant.