Similarly the X and Y drives should cost and displace more to get that level of performance.
Tug Concept
- Thread starter sageryne
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I've posted this analysis before ... and got "shouted down" for doing the Show Your Work proving the point with the same math that you did, but including additional "proofs" from multiple angles.
Basically, the right side of the chart "breaks the pattern" in ways that make it incompatible with a formulaic progression (hence why "charts" are needed instead).
Oh and the Drive-J @ 2000 tons is ... a misprint ... so basically an errata.
The LBBs 1-3 had ZERO printing errors in them, right?
Right?
The LBB1-3 were written from directly inspired insight into the universe, and are thus perfect in every way. All else is heresy.Oh and the Drive-J @ 2000 tons is ... a misprint ... so basically an errata.
The LBBs 1-3 had ZERO printing errors in them, right?
Right?
This requires two emoji's.The LBB1-3 were written from directly inspired insight into the universe, and are thus perfect in every way. All else is heresy.
I have a soft spot for charts, even if the charts in LBB2 did strictly follow the progression, I'd still keep them. My qualm with them is , as written, they break the underlying math. I had also previously posted this, but until now I never thought of increasing the size/rating of the drives to make them match the performance chart as written.
Uprating the X, Y & Z drives does make the chart match much more closely with the math, there are still a few differences, mostly in the 800 and 1000 ton hulls.
For anyone who's curious the math looks like this:
Uprating the X, Y & Z drives does make the chart match much more closely with the math, there are still a few differences, mostly in the 800 and 1000 ton hulls.
For anyone who's curious the math looks like this:
That'd be great if they were compatible, but HG and LBB2 are two different animals. Between the two I prefer LBB2.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Suffice it to say that ... "revising" ... LBB2 in this fashion is ... more intellectually honest.
Fortunately, it's "only an issue" for Large Hulls constructed @ TL=15 (because of the drive letters involved).
Stick to lower tech stuff (9-C) and it's substantially a Non-Problem™.
Fortunately, it's "only an issue" for Large Hulls constructed @ TL=15 (because of the drive letters involved).
Stick to lower tech stuff (9-C) and it's substantially a Non-Problem™.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If there was an error they had two chances to correct it - the Traveller Book and Starter make no changes. There were multiple print runs, again it was not seen as an error.
The error is people thinking there must be somesacred secret formula.
The error is people thinking there must be some
By that logic there shouldn't be any errata, because "they already had two chances to fix it"
Not necessariy a misprint. It's a rounding up of 0.1 point, which is unusual -- but given the ham-fisted application of bonus performance for the W-Z Drives, it's really small potatoes by comparison.Oh and the Drive-J @ 2000 tons is ... a misprint ... so basically an errata.
The LBBs 1-3 had ZERO printing errors in them, right?
Right?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Like they fixed the damage of pulse lasers?
or the performance os ship missiles
or the missing computer rules in 77 edition...
When errors were spotted and communicated they got fixed, if the drive table had errors they would have been fixed. Minor typos and the like not so much, the editing process was just as likely to introduce new typos.
(Emphasis added for clarity.) There is one -- until there isn't (W-Z Drives).
I know we went over this, years ago, but can't find where. Will post here if I find it.
The three things going on here are the shift from 200Td hull increments to 1000Td increments, the uneven compression of "bonus" performance into the W-Z Drives, and the failure to (or rather, choice to not) scale the W-Z Drives proportionate to their output. The last point often gets overlooked, but @spank pointed it out upthread.
Saying that things like this shouldn't be fixed because they haven't been fixed is a bad argument. There quite are clearly error on the engine size and/or performance tables.
There is no good reason a 2000 ton ship should be able to get Jump-6 with an engine that's only 6% of it's mass when most other ships need 15-20% of their mass for J-6 perfomance.
There is no reason to think they are intentional deviations any more than other omissions or typos. Errors like this get carried forward all the time, that doesn't suddenly make them OK.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
No, what I am saying is people are arguing for something the authors intended, it was no mistake hence they did not change the table despite having multiple opportunities to do so.
There is no error in the drive tables, they are exactly as the author intended.
Those engines are TL15, the best engines in the game, hence their superior performance.
Every few years someone thinks they have rediscoverd a secret formula - did so my self about twenty years ago - but there is no evidence at all the drive tables were ever any more than a look up table with numbers made up by the authors to fit the pattern they wanted, no formula involved, and no mistakes as far as they were concerned.
There is no error in the drive tables, they are exactly as the author intended.
Those engines are TL15, the best engines in the game, hence their superior performance.
Every few years someone thinks they have rediscoverd a secret formula - did so my self about twenty years ago - but there is no evidence at all the drive tables were ever any more than a look up table with numbers made up by the authors to fit the pattern they wanted, no formula involved, and no mistakes as far as they were concerned.
