Or just Frank Chadwick
VehicleMaker breakdown
- Thread starter mvdwege
- Start date
Or just Frank Chadwick
With almost no exceptions you can't fire magnum rounds in a non-magnum gun. So the gun itself is indeed "magnum". For instance, try using .357mag in your .38spc and see where that gets you. Try even fitting .22mag in a .22lr pistol or rifle (other than single-shot), let alone firing it.
Yes, technically any Bullet firing weapon could be "magnum", but that is just because "magnum" is a marketing term, not a technical term. I restrict Magnum to Revolvers for three reasons...
1.) Because the first thing most people think of when they hear the word Magnum in reference to firearms is Revolvers.
2.) Because Magnum isn't needed anyway, as Heavy does the same thing, and arguably does it better.
3.) Because Magnum Revolver just sounds cool, while Magnum Machine Gun sounds pretty darn lame.
However, other should of course feel free to do what they want. I honestly don't care.
Actually, the .44 Magnum I was referring to was the cartridge. I know the difference. Hell, I carry a magnum handgun at almost all times when I am outside my house, I better know the difference.
Magnum power levels? There is no such thing. Magnum "power levels" range from as low as 150ft/lbs from the .22mag in a handgun, to 7500 ft/lbs from a .460 Weatherby Magnum rifle. Magnum is a marketing term, as is Nitro Express, Action Express, and lots of other names added to the end of various cartridges.... And as such Magnum probably shouldn't even be in the game, but since it is people should use it however they want.
It's interesting that you equate descriptors like Improved and Advanced with increases in calibre. It nicely illustrates the difference in interpretation that GM (and I presume all the other Makers) allows.
In my head things like switches in calibres, or groups of similar calibres was going to be represented by Burden descriptors like Very Light, Light, Medium, Heavy and Very Heavy. You can imagine my distress when I almost instantaneously realised you can't have a pistol that is merely Light (it's damage drops to zero) but you would have to add an additional staging descriptor such as Standard or Improved. It's a little thing, and it shouldn't irk me as much as it does.
Take the Advanced descriptor,
"Advanced. The weapon is significantly better than the standard version, and features lower weight and excellent ergonomic design. It inflicts increased damage."
Feels like calibre should be going down, not up, smaller, lighter, more efficient.
Your Improved Magnum Revolver (.44) weighs 1.4 kilos, your Advanced Magnum Revolver (.50) weighs 1.1 kilos. Seems counter-intuitive to me.
What i meant by Magnum power levels was that they are usually at the most powerful end of the standard round in that calibre. A normal Shotgun shell as opposed to a Magnum Shotgun shell, which do exist, a Magnum 9mm round (Yes i have seen one in handgunner) as opposed to a normal 9mm.
Sorry you are wrong there, i have been a member of a gun club and i have fired .357 magnum rounds from .38 revolver, or more correctly a Smith & Wesson police special. I have also fired regular .44 calibre rounds and .44 magnum rounds from a model 29 Smith & Wesson revolver and a Desert Eagle Semi Automatic Pistol.
There is no such thing as a magnum handgun, there are handguns that fire magnum rounds, just the same as there is no weapon called a 9mm but there is Beretta 92F which fires a 9mm and is sometimes called a Beretta 9mm incorrectly.
This is the way i see it too. For Standard rifles and carbines I peg them at 7mm -10mm caliber in my head, but just as an initial guide.
I'm not so sure about higher TLs decreasing caliber, certain calibers and rounds can be seen as "ideal" for a certain role and won't decrease, but I see where you're coming from.
On the Magnum issue. I'm not a expert with handguns, but in general ammunition for any caliber comes in a wide range of loads, power, quality.
What I understand by Magnum is that the case is either larger or has more propellant stuffed into a normal case. Where the the Magnum round has a larger case, then it would require a firearm chambered for that round. So while Magnum is properly applied to the round, there is a case for applying it to a handgun in its own right.
Since GunMaker doesn't deal with ammo I'll assume it means a handgun chambered for a more powerful round, most likely in the same caliber as the non Magnum version.
Edited for spelling and clarity.
Last edited:
I toyed with the idea of 'fixing' it, by which I mean adjusting it more to my world view, but that lead me to have a 'T5 GunMaker' spreadsheet and a 'T5 My GunMaker' spreadsheet. I toyed with it for a week or two, using CT as my guide as to what I wanted, then I pointed out to myself, you could just play CT.
Getting back to the original topic, kinda, I was in the mood today to make some cars. Just regular, 20th century cars. Nothing crazy, nothing low tech. I decided I wanted to make a sports car (maybe like a Corvette or Lotus Esprit), a 'supercar' (like a Lab), and just for comparison, a regular mid-size, car (like a Hugo, or Neon). Aaaand they didn't turn out quite how I expected. Would anyone care to tell me what they think? (Note: all 3 have Hours endurance.)
Sports car:
code: FEFWC
type: (Fast) Enclosed Fossil Wheeled Car
TL: 4 (c. 1900)
q: 6
vol: 4
spd: 5 (50 kph)
ld: -1
AV: -6 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:-6, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 50
Supercar:
code: HPFEFWC
type: (High-Powered Fast) Enclosed Fossil Wheeled Car
TL: 5 (c. 1930)
q: 6
vol: 5
spd: 6 (100 kph)
ld: -2
AV: -6 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:-6, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 150
Avg. Car:
code: EFWC
type: Enclosed Fossil Wheeled Car
TL: 3 (c. 1700)
q: 6
vol: 3
spd: 4 (30 kph)
ld: 1
AV: -6 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:-6, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 20
I'm sure you can see the problems here. Am I doing it wrong? I don't think so, because it's pretty easy, but I still hope so. Is there perhaps pending errata I don't know about? I can't believe I can't make a simple car.
Want to see something really funny?
code: OFLWC
type: Open Fossil Lt Wheeled Car
TL: 1 (c. 3500 BC)
q: 6
vol: 2
spd: 4 (30 kph)
ld: 0.5
AV: -10 {ca:0, fp:0, rp:0, sp:-10, ps:0, in:0, se:0}
KCr: 5
Wow, those Egyptians sure knew how to make 'em. And if I make it Experimental instead of Fossil, I can get TL 0. I can make the Flintstone's car! :rofl:
Sports car:
code: FEFWC
type: (Fast) Enclosed Fossil Wheeled Car
TL: 4 (c. 1900)
q: 6
vol: 4
spd: 5 (50 kph)
ld: -1
AV: -6 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:-6, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 50
Supercar:
code: HPFEFWC
type: (High-Powered Fast) Enclosed Fossil Wheeled Car
TL: 5 (c. 1930)
q: 6
vol: 5
spd: 6 (100 kph)
ld: -2
AV: -6 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:-6, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 150
Avg. Car:
code: EFWC
type: Enclosed Fossil Wheeled Car
TL: 3 (c. 1700)
q: 6
vol: 3
spd: 4 (30 kph)
ld: 1
AV: -6 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:-6, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 20
I'm sure you can see the problems here. Am I doing it wrong? I don't think so, because it's pretty easy, but I still hope so. Is there perhaps pending errata I don't know about? I can't believe I can't make a simple car.
Want to see something really funny?
code: OFLWC
type: Open Fossil Lt Wheeled Car
TL: 1 (c. 3500 BC)
q: 6
vol: 2
spd: 4 (30 kph)
ld: 0.5
AV: -10 {ca:0, fp:0, rp:0, sp:-10, ps:0, in:0, se:0}
KCr: 5
Wow, those Egyptians sure knew how to make 'em. And if I make it Experimental instead of Fossil, I can get TL 0. I can make the Flintstone's car! :rofl:
Okay this is a big Rolls Royce or something of that kind? If you get -1 Load either the design is impracticable or set Load= 0. Likewise with AV: -6 either the design is impracticable or set the AV to 1.
Likewise with these either set the minimum values or label them impracticable. One thing I notice is that you are designing all these as Medium sized vehicles. Have you tried them as Lite or VLite. You should get vehicles with volumes closer to historical equivalents.
Flintstones car is Beast powered ie. Human leg powered. Congratulations what you've built is an Archimedes style steam engine that travels along a permanent way at 30kph. And note that TL1 is 3500BC to ~1500AD. [EDIT] Just doing a bit of research on the proper year for this and I come up with Ferdinand Verbies design for a steam turbine car in 1672 and Christian Huygens an internal combustion single cylinder "engine" in 1673. The first recognizable vehicle was Cugnot’s Car between 1769 and 1771. It was steam powered but badly designed. So in this case VehicleMaker is off by about 200 years. BUT according to the Technology table Ground cars have a base tech level of TL5. "If Local TL is less than Base TL minus 3, the device cannot be produced locally. It is not available." p.500 So TL5-3=TL2 you cannot make a GroundCar at TL2 or TL1 or TL0. Sorry
The key here is proper interpretation.
Last edited:
To design a Lotus Esprit
Okay I googled the stats for the Lotus Esprit. I get the following:
Volume: 12m3 so about 1ton
Speed: Top Speed ~270kph
Operators/Passengers: 2
Its wheeled and enclosed, no real load needed.
Okay lets see what we can make.
FEILWC Fast Enclosed Improved Lt Wheeled Car
code: FEILWC
type: Enclosed Improved Lt Wheeled Car
TL: 7
q: 6
vol: 1
spd: 7
ld: -1.5
AV: 14 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:14, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 80
Okay so to interpret that we have a 1ton volume 2 seat enclosed car built or designed around 1975AD. It has no room for cargo (-1.5 Load strickly means its impracticable but I'll call it the streamlinging that allows no trunk space and no roof rack). It can run for #3 days on a tank of gas. It can do 300kph normally but in the hands of a skilled driver can hit 500kph. I think thats too fast so I'll try again:
EMWC Enclosed Modified Wheeled Car
code: EMWC
type: Enclosed Modified Wheeled Car
TL: 7
q: 6
vol: 1
spd: 6
ld: 1
AV: 4 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:4, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 10
Okay this is similar but has a cruise speed of 100kph and a top speed of 300. This one only has ~3 Hours endurance (gas guzzler). Amazingly it has 1 ton of load in its 1 ton of volume. Thinking about that this car seems more like a souped up saloon with a driver and space to squeeze in 5 passengers. More of an American muscle car than a European roadster?
One more:
FEIWC Fast Enclosed Improved Wheeled Car
code: FEIWC
type: Enclosed Improved Wheeled Car
TL: 7
q: 6
vol: 1
spd: 6
ld: -1
AV: 14 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:14, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 70
This one cruises at 100kph and tops at 300kph on a 3 Hour tank of gas is about the right volume and is designed/built at TL7 or 1975. It has no Load carrying capacity. Quality is better than some. I could add Luxury (which I think I just discovered is broken).
Note that the Errata says: "p. 285, Stage,Advanced/Early/Improved/Alternate (clarification): The phrase “The vehicle is powered by a Fusion Module.” should be removed from these paragraphs."
Meaning that the vehicles are produced at TL7 where the internal combustion engine is in standard use and adding the Stage descriptors improves those internal combustion engines. (I know becuse I submitted this errata with that argument).
Are these closer to your dream Lotus Murdoc?
Okay I googled the stats for the Lotus Esprit. I get the following:
Volume: 12m3 so about 1ton
Speed: Top Speed ~270kph
Operators/Passengers: 2
Its wheeled and enclosed, no real load needed.
Okay lets see what we can make.
FEILWC Fast Enclosed Improved Lt Wheeled Car
code: FEILWC
type: Enclosed Improved Lt Wheeled Car
TL: 7
q: 6
vol: 1
spd: 7
ld: -1.5
AV: 14 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:14, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 80
Okay so to interpret that we have a 1ton volume 2 seat enclosed car built or designed around 1975AD. It has no room for cargo (-1.5 Load strickly means its impracticable but I'll call it the streamlinging that allows no trunk space and no roof rack). It can run for #3 days on a tank of gas. It can do 300kph normally but in the hands of a skilled driver can hit 500kph. I think thats too fast so I'll try again:
EMWC Enclosed Modified Wheeled Car
code: EMWC
type: Enclosed Modified Wheeled Car
TL: 7
q: 6
vol: 1
spd: 6
ld: 1
AV: 4 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:4, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 10
Okay this is similar but has a cruise speed of 100kph and a top speed of 300. This one only has ~3 Hours endurance (gas guzzler). Amazingly it has 1 ton of load in its 1 ton of volume. Thinking about that this car seems more like a souped up saloon with a driver and space to squeeze in 5 passengers. More of an American muscle car than a European roadster?
One more:
FEIWC Fast Enclosed Improved Wheeled Car
code: FEIWC
type: Enclosed Improved Wheeled Car
TL: 7
q: 6
vol: 1
spd: 6
ld: -1
AV: 14 {ca:0, fp:4, rp:0, sp:14, ps:0, in:12, se:0}
KCr: 70
This one cruises at 100kph and tops at 300kph on a 3 Hour tank of gas is about the right volume and is designed/built at TL7 or 1975. It has no Load carrying capacity. Quality is better than some. I could add Luxury (which I think I just discovered is broken).
Note that the Errata says: "p. 285, Stage,Advanced/Early/Improved/Alternate (clarification): The phrase “The vehicle is powered by a Fusion Module.” should be removed from these paragraphs."
Meaning that the vehicles are produced at TL7 where the internal combustion engine is in standard use and adding the Stage descriptors improves those internal combustion engines. (I know becuse I submitted this errata with that argument).
Are these closer to your dream Lotus Murdoc?
Last edited:
In the mid 70's you could get a US muscle car with close to these specs for ~$4,000. At the listed cruise of 61 mph you'd get around 5 hours of driving.
So, the price is way, WAY wrong (1,700% too high). But the rest is close enough.
They usually are the most powerful in that caliber, but A. They aren't always, and B. The word MAGNUM is not what makes them so.
A.) For instance, .22mag is so ridiculously far from the most powerful in that caliber it isn't even funny.
B.) Magnum is marketing and/or a way to distinguish a more powerful version of an existing round from the original. For instance, 9mm Magnum, more correctly known as 9mm Winchester Magnum, has that name because the goal was to develop a semi-auto round that was as powerful as .357magnum (it isn't as powerful btw). They couldn't call it 9mm because that already existed (distinction), and they wanted to make it clear the intent was to be a much more powerful round than standard 9mm (marketing), so they called it 9mm magnum. However, they could have just as well called it 9mm Booger-Smacks and it would be exactly the same round it is with the Magnum moniker. Also, if 9mm parabellum (what is commonly just referred to as 9mm) had originally had the same power levels as 9mm Magnum, then it would still simply be called 9mm, not 9mm Magnum. So MAGNUM has no inherent specific meaning. It is basically just like the words "Ultra" or "Mega" when buying toilet paper. Ultra vs normal may tend to be better/thicker/softer paper, but the word Ultra itself still doesn't have any REAL meaning, double so when going from brand to brand.
I am glad you brought up Magnum shotgun shells. They prove my point better than almost anything. What is a "Magnum" shell?... A Magnum shell is whatever someone thinks they can get away with calling a Magnum shell. Most 3" shells will say "Magnum" on the box. But 3" shells have existed for a LONG time and weren't originally called Magnum. They got the name Magnum because .357 and .44 magnum got popular so shotgun shell makers decided to capitalize on that and started calling their larger shells (2.75" is standard) Magnum. Once one shell maker did this almost everyone else followed suit for marketing reasons. I think some companies do make a distinction within their own product lines for 3" regular vs 3" magnum, with the magnum version having higher brass and more powder, but there is no consistency in this from brand to brand. Also, all 3" shotguns fire all 3" shells, and all 3" shells fall within the standard specifications for power of all other 3" shells. So in reality there is no such thing as a 3" magnum shell at all, it is just marketing.
Given your second sentence I have to question whether you know what you are talking about in the first. The S&W 29 is a .44 Magnum revolver. ALL .44 Magnum revolvers can fire .44spc because it is the same caliber and design, just shorter with less powder so it is much less powerful (and therefore 100% safe in a gun designed to magnum specifications). So the fact that you think that having fired both from an S&W 29 in any way makes a useful point shows that you don't really know what you are talking about. This then makes me think that you may be completely incorrect about the .357 vs .38spc thing. .357 and .38spc work the same way as .44mag and .44spc, all .357mag revolver can fire .38spc like it was nothing. I am guessing you really just fired .38spc from a .357mag revolver, then followed up with .357mag and therefore thought you were firing the .357 from a .38spc revolver when you weren't.
Yes, there is such a thing as a magnum handgun. Your entire series of points above makes this very point. The S&W 29 is a .44 MAGNUM handgun. The .357 is a MAGNUM handgun. The Desert Eagle that fires .44 magnum is a MAGNUM handgun. If you tried to fire the same cartridges from NON-Magnum handguns you would, at worst, have a catastrophic failure that kills you or someone nearby, and at best it would work but you would be putting undo stress on the frame that would eventually lead to a catastrophic failure, possibly even later on when using regular rounds for that handgun.
I was aiming for Murdoc's Lotus Esprit for this one....
I do get a bit exasperated at the exchange rate arguments that come up again and again.
I'm not criticizing HG_B, but 70KCr is the cost to produce just one of these cars on a planet somewhere.
I may very well sell it to you for a Price of $4000 at my Fnjord Motors dealership. Maybe you can buy it on Hire Purchase and I'll cream you on the interest :devil:
T5 says I can mass produce this car for 14KCr and I if I produce it Japanese style with robots instead of American hand assembled I can use the "Very Efficient Production Cost = Value / 10" or 7000Cr.
T5 also lists the Value of an ATV at 100KCr so a fast car for 70KCr seems more reasonable.
[EDIT] Okay so when I used the Volume Production calculations I used 70KCr as Value. Since 70KCr is also the Cost of production I wasn't adding in any profit. Just wanted to be clear before someone points it out.
Last edited:
That's STILL 300% over. No way around it. Doesn't really matter but, the costs don't work.
Thanks for all the work! So you're saying my mistake was in using "Fossil" then instead of other Stages? Given that errata I'd submit then the Fossil is misleading, especially since it is -2 to TL. I mean I can understand the reason for it, since we could have been working on electric cars for the past century on Earth instead of IC, imagine if we were on a world where fossil fuels were not abundant. But if it was a separate line of research or something, I'd make it so that you could add it to other stage mods. Perhaps now that this errata is there, we should also add in that that is allowed? And why is there the penalty to armor for Fossil anyway? (I get why it has less SoundProof, that's cool.) Maybe the default Motive TLs should be adjusted a bit as well. I know they are supposed to be when the tech becomes widely available, but if Fossil vehicles are going to be available two TLs ealier (maybe that should be just 1?), I have no problem with 'widely available' happening at "Early".Note that the Errata says: "p. 285, Stage,Advanced/Early/Improved/Alternate (clarification): The phrase “The vehicle is powered by a Fusion Module.” should be removed from these paragraphs."
Meaning that the vehicles are produced at TL7 where the internal combustion engine is in standard use and adding the Stage descriptors improves those internal combustion engines. (I know becuse I submitted this errata with that argument).
Are these closer to your dream Lotus Murdoc?
I wouldn't call it a mistake at all. I think with the Makers there are many paths to achieving the final design or product you want. With VehicleMaker I use the following procedure:
1). Come up with a specification. Use either a real world vehicle or set some design goals that you can work towards.
2). Use the VehicleMaker Fillform and design process.
3). Look at the final design and describe it based on the characteristics and components.
You may have noticed that there are no or very minimal descriptions on the components in VehicleMaker. I say this is because its up to the designer to interpret what they mean for a particular design.
Fossil is a good example. It drops the vehicle TL by -2. The "stuff" associated with it takes up 2 tons. It drops armor by -10 and Soundproofing by -10. Its not powerful or reliable enough to power lifters or grav.
Okay here are two possible interpretations of what that means:
Fossil: Internal Combustion Engine
This is probably what you thought of Murdoc. An IC engine powered by fossil fuels, specifically hydrocarbon distillates (gas/petrol or diesel). Its a common form of power pack at lower tech levels. Its major disadvantages are that IC engines are bulky, they require a big engine bay, a radiator, a gearbox to distribute power and a fuel tank, all of which take up two extra tons of volume. They are noisy and the vibration is hard to damp out (-10 Soundproofing). You can interpret the -10 AV as 1). construction techniques and materials at lower TLs are less damage resistant, or 2). Having a big tank of gas and a big engine block and radiator makes it more vulnerable to damage and more likely that a hit by a bullet will do damage. It does not generate enough electrical power to be used with Lifters or Grav.
Fossil: Steam Engine
Here's a different take. A steam engine used at lower TLs but can be refined to build steam cars and steam trucks. Its major disadvantage is the bulk of its fuel which is fossil based (either fuel oil or coal) and the requirement to have a steam generator or boiler alongside either a steam piston engine or turbine. The fuel bunker, boiler and piston/turbine add an extra 2 tons to any design. They are noisy and the vibration is hard to damp out (-10 Soundproofing). You can interpret the -10 AV as 1). construction techniques and materials at lower TLs are less damage resistant, or 2). Having a big container of steam and lots of piping makes it more vulnerable to damage and more likely that a hit by a bullet will do damage. It does not generate enough reliable electrical power to be used with Lifters or Grav.
Okay both of those descriptions of what Fossil is are perfectly valid but very different.
I find the detailed rules on p.500 very valuable for explaining when and if technology is available but they must be used in conjunction with the Technology Table on p. 504.
For example on IC Engines. The table says that Oil and Petrochemicals are widely available at TL5 so thats the Base Tech Level for IC Engines (and GroundCars). We'll have Improved IC Engines at TL6 and Ultimate versions at TL9 (computer controlled pneumatic valve types I assume). TL4 gives us Early IC Engines and TL3 Prototype IC Engines and TL2 Experimental IC Engines (This is about right for Christian Huygens engine which came along in 1673, its just a bit out on the TL Table.).
So a TL9 Ground Car will most likely have an Ultimate IC Engine under the hood, but it could have a Prototype FusionPlus plant or some form of fuel cell or rubberband drive. Its up to the designer to fill in this level of detail. Otherwise we assume that a TL9 GroundCar has an IC engine. Adding Fossil to that TL9 GroundCar does not stop it being an IC engine powered car but it rules out the possibility of FusionPlus or anything else. It tells us that this type of GroundCar is available at TL7 and has a big fossil fuel burning powerplant to achieve the same overall the performance as the TL9 version, but its bigger, noisier and less well protected or more vulnerable.
Its a bit like saying: "I want to produce a car with the same performance of my car in the driveway but I want to do it in Henry Ford's Factory in 1930". I can come pretty close to the same performance, but I'll need a bigger engine and overall what rolls off the production line might look like a hot rod, not a Model T or a modern saloon.
The thing I'm always preaching is don't be bound by the LongName a Maker spits out. Interpret it as suits your need.
Last edited:
But can I use the Fossil mod with the other stage mods or not? Either way I think it should be more clear. Heck, I think most of it should be. You say that there is lack of description on purpose. Maybe it's just my way of thinking or whatever, but so far I am not enjoying this having to 'creatively interpret' the rules in order to get what I want. I'm sure its good for some people, but it's just another thing driving me more back to MT.
Speaking of, I'll digress a little here to bring up a thought I had the other day about the difference in style between MT (for example) and T5 design systems. MT seems to me like the "engineer's method", where they first figure out the craft's purpose, then proceed to make the full detailed design for it. T5 on the other hand seems like a "manager's method", where after determining the goal, the pick some characteristics they want for the craft (fast, heavy, grav, slave, etc.), then send those specs off to the engineers to come up with the final (and boring to them) details (which are largely ignored or generalized in the game). I can easily see how many people would prefer this method, being the faster of the two, and less (or at least easier) math perhaps, but so far I'm not enjoying it. And maybe it's because of my personal style/thinking, maybe it's because I learned the other way first, maybe it's because these systems haven't been polished enough yet and it's the rough edges that are grating on me, it's hard to tell. If there was more explanation on a lot of it I know I'd have an easier time with it, and I've assumed so far that it is only missing because it is also missing from so much of other parts of T5, but if as you say it is a deliberate and integral feature of the system, then it probably is just me.
