Scarecrow
August 19th, 2002, 04:53 AM
Okay, so I assume as they are linked to under the render of Ted Lindsey's superb Scout/Courier model that the Scout/Courier deckplans avaialble on the T20 main site are of the same ship.
Why oh why then are they not even the same size or shape?
Why is there no fuel space?
Why are there habitable areas out towards the edge of the ship when there quite blatantly is no headroom?
I know I can be quite anal about this stuff but those plans are just taking the piss.
Crow
Why oh why then are they not even the same size or shape?
Why is there no fuel space?
Why are there habitable areas out towards the edge of the ship when there quite blatantly is no headroom?
I know I can be quite anal about this stuff but those plans are just taking the piss.
Crow
stormcrow
August 19th, 2002, 10:28 AM
so, from one Crow to another-
weren't you going to be doing some deckplans of your (very very awesome) version of the S/C ? Are they going to conform to T20?
On a related note: Can we in any way convince QuikLink to hire you to do graphics / deckplans for T20?
;)
-] Crow
weren't you going to be doing some deckplans of your (very very awesome) version of the S/C ? Are they going to conform to T20?
On a related note: Can we in any way convince QuikLink to hire you to do graphics / deckplans for T20?
;)
-] Crow
Scarecrow
August 19th, 2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by stormcrow:
so, from one Crow to another-
weren't you going to be doing some deckplans of your (very very awesome) version of the S/C ?
Yes, eventually. I decide to build the thing in 3D first which is going to take a while. Should have stuck to 2D =)
Are they going to conform to T20?
Nope. It'll still only have a 3 ton hold instead of 25. Otherwise it'll pretty much be okay. Still, given the blatant disregard for accuracy and credibility displayed in the T20 Scout plans you could always just say the 3 ton hold was actually 25 =)
On a related note: Can we in any way convince QuikLink to hire you to do graphics / deckplans for T20?I'd absolutely love to but they couldn't pay me enough. I'll stick to Computer games.
Crow
so, from one Crow to another-
weren't you going to be doing some deckplans of your (very very awesome) version of the S/C ?
Yes, eventually. I decide to build the thing in 3D first which is going to take a while. Should have stuck to 2D =)
Are they going to conform to T20?
Nope. It'll still only have a 3 ton hold instead of 25. Otherwise it'll pretty much be okay. Still, given the blatant disregard for accuracy and credibility displayed in the T20 Scout plans you could always just say the 3 ton hold was actually 25 =)
On a related note: Can we in any way convince QuikLink to hire you to do graphics / deckplans for T20?I'd absolutely love to but they couldn't pay me enough. I'll stick to Computer games.
Crow
stormcrow
August 19th, 2002, 01:41 PM
ahh, but if you would "love to" you would do it on the cheap, yes? :cool:
hunter
August 19th, 2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I'd absolutely love to but they couldn't pay me enough. I'll stick to Computer games.
CrowYou definately have the talent, but trust me it wouldn't be your fees that precluded us from hiring you...
Hunter
I'd absolutely love to but they couldn't pay me enough. I'll stick to Computer games.
CrowYou definately have the talent, but trust me it wouldn't be your fees that precluded us from hiring you...
Hunter
Scarecrow
August 20th, 2002, 03:51 AM
Hunter,
I wrote a long and boring reply but I've edited it to say simply, fair comment, mate.
I'm still right though. ;)
Crow
I wrote a long and boring reply but I've edited it to say simply, fair comment, mate.
I'm still right though. ;)
Crow
hunter
August 22nd, 2002, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Hunter,
I wrote a long and boring reply but I've edited it to say simply, fair comment, mate.
Well in that regard we apparently have a similar train of thought. I too took the time to edit my last reply down to what it was ;)
I'm still right though. ;)
Ummm no actually your wrong. You are assuming the deckplans were based off of Ted Lindsey's rendered model. They weren't. Ted Lindsey's model was based off the original line art and deckplans (done by the same artist, Bryan Gibson).
Hunter
Hunter,
I wrote a long and boring reply but I've edited it to say simply, fair comment, mate.
Well in that regard we apparently have a similar train of thought. I too took the time to edit my last reply down to what it was ;)
I'm still right though. ;)
Ummm no actually your wrong. You are assuming the deckplans were based off of Ted Lindsey's rendered model. They weren't. Ted Lindsey's model was based off the original line art and deckplans (done by the same artist, Bryan Gibson).
Hunter
chron187
August 22nd, 2002, 02:29 AM
Okay, so I assume as they are linked to under the render of Ted Lindsey's superb Scout/Courier model that the Scout/Courier deckplans avaialble on the T20 main site are of the same ship.
Why oh why then are they not even the same size or shape?
Why is there no fuel space?
Why are there habitable areas out towards the edge of the ship when there quite blatantly is no headroom?
I know I can be quite anal about this stuff but those plans are just taking the piss.
Crow
I know what you mean about being peturbed about the details it was something similar about the millienum falcon that made me peturbed long enough commit money to buying T20 if their is no way that the rules ship can fit a normal person (for the species that made the ship) that would be a massive turnoff graemlins/toast.gif for me so I hope when I get the book that I dont find out their was no way such a ship could be livable without going everywhere on your hands and knees of course not knowing that such a mistake was made would be fine to because ingnorance is blice ;)
Why oh why then are they not even the same size or shape?
Why is there no fuel space?
Why are there habitable areas out towards the edge of the ship when there quite blatantly is no headroom?
I know I can be quite anal about this stuff but those plans are just taking the piss.
Crow
I know what you mean about being peturbed about the details it was something similar about the millienum falcon that made me peturbed long enough commit money to buying T20 if their is no way that the rules ship can fit a normal person (for the species that made the ship) that would be a massive turnoff graemlins/toast.gif for me so I hope when I get the book that I dont find out their was no way such a ship could be livable without going everywhere on your hands and knees of course not knowing that such a mistake was made would be fine to because ingnorance is blice ;)
Scarecrow
August 22nd, 2002, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by hunter:
Ummm no actually your wrong. You are assuming the deckplans were based off of Ted Lindsey's rendered model. They weren't. Ted Lindsey's model was based off the original line art and deckplans (done by the same artist, Bryan Gibson).
Er, no. I was actually talking about Bryan's line art. This has nothing to do with Ted's model.
I simply overlayed the deckplans on top of the lineart in Photoshop. It's dead easy. You can do it yourself in a few seconds. The two don't match - they aren't even close.
Bryan's hardware illustrations are superb and Ted's models are equally some of the best illustrations I've seen for Traveller to date. You have a couple of excellent additions to the team there. My complaint is not even that the deckplans are badly drawn, they aren't. They are just ill-concieved. They need to be the right shape for a start - I don't think that's unreasonable to ask - and have more thought put into wether certain habitable areas would actually fit into the space they occupy.
This is actually an excellent article on ship design. The author and I disagree on a number of minor points but I think that it's a must-read for any and all budding deckplan designers.
http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/deckplan/deckplan.html
Crow
Ummm no actually your wrong. You are assuming the deckplans were based off of Ted Lindsey's rendered model. They weren't. Ted Lindsey's model was based off the original line art and deckplans (done by the same artist, Bryan Gibson).
Er, no. I was actually talking about Bryan's line art. This has nothing to do with Ted's model.
I simply overlayed the deckplans on top of the lineart in Photoshop. It's dead easy. You can do it yourself in a few seconds. The two don't match - they aren't even close.
Bryan's hardware illustrations are superb and Ted's models are equally some of the best illustrations I've seen for Traveller to date. You have a couple of excellent additions to the team there. My complaint is not even that the deckplans are badly drawn, they aren't. They are just ill-concieved. They need to be the right shape for a start - I don't think that's unreasonable to ask - and have more thought put into wether certain habitable areas would actually fit into the space they occupy.
This is actually an excellent article on ship design. The author and I disagree on a number of minor points but I think that it's a must-read for any and all budding deckplan designers.
http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/deckplan/deckplan.html
Crow
Scarecrow
August 22nd, 2002, 03:17 PM
Ta-Daaaah!
I took the half of the scout visible from Bryan's plans and flipped it to create a whole. I then dropped it on to the deckplans that are linked to from below the plan on the main T20 site.
The Green outline is Bryan's original drawing. The red outline is the deckplan.
Crow
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/scarecrow/difference.jpg
I took the half of the scout visible from Bryan's plans and flipped it to create a whole. I then dropped it on to the deckplans that are linked to from below the plan on the main T20 site.
The Green outline is Bryan's original drawing. The red outline is the deckplan.
Crow
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/scarecrow/difference.jpg
FlightCommanderSolitude
August 22nd, 2002, 08:39 PM
If you increase the width of the overlaid exterior image to 120% it's almost a perfect match except for the little nubs on either side of the vessel. While it's admitedly not a perfect match, it doesn't bother me that much.
As for habitable areas out towards the edge of the plans, I agree the headroom would probably be tight but it's not possible to determine the angle on the sides of the vessel and thus impossible to determine the vertical space at different points in the interior. I suspect that if the interior spaces were padded with a box or two of darkened area, things would be ok.
In Traveller deckplan tradition, the darkened areas are fuel compartments and fiddley bits. There is clearly also some deadspace above and below the habitable area which could presumably also hold fuel.
While I would agree that it's unfortunate that the exterior and external plans don't match up better, I can't agree that they're "not even the same size or shape"; they're roughly the same size and shape, and I'm fine with that.
Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a published Traveller deckplan that was perfect.
As for habitable areas out towards the edge of the plans, I agree the headroom would probably be tight but it's not possible to determine the angle on the sides of the vessel and thus impossible to determine the vertical space at different points in the interior. I suspect that if the interior spaces were padded with a box or two of darkened area, things would be ok.
In Traveller deckplan tradition, the darkened areas are fuel compartments and fiddley bits. There is clearly also some deadspace above and below the habitable area which could presumably also hold fuel.
While I would agree that it's unfortunate that the exterior and external plans don't match up better, I can't agree that they're "not even the same size or shape"; they're roughly the same size and shape, and I'm fine with that.
Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a published Traveller deckplan that was perfect.
Scarecrow
August 23rd, 2002, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a published Traveller deckplan that was perfect.I quite agree and that's exactly my point. That's why I get so annoyed. That's why I'm so dissapointed.
Yes, you can stretch it. But you shouldn't have to. The cockpit doesn't match the windows. The bulges on the sides aren't even close to each other. They should be.
Minor things? Yes. They're fundamentally basic things. So surely it's not unreasonable to expect them to be right.
Ordinarily I couldn't care less about accurate fuel tonnage space or engine size - as long as the spaces alotted are feasible and believable I'm happy - but these plans aren't even the right shape and that wouldn't have really taken much effort to get right.
T20 has a frankly mouthwatering redesign of the classic Traveller Scout (which I've always hated) and I just feel a bit let down that the deckplans aren't up to the same superb quality as Bryan's line art and Ted's model.
It's just a shame. That's all I really wanted to say.
Crow
Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a published Traveller deckplan that was perfect.I quite agree and that's exactly my point. That's why I get so annoyed. That's why I'm so dissapointed.
Yes, you can stretch it. But you shouldn't have to. The cockpit doesn't match the windows. The bulges on the sides aren't even close to each other. They should be.
Minor things? Yes. They're fundamentally basic things. So surely it's not unreasonable to expect them to be right.
Ordinarily I couldn't care less about accurate fuel tonnage space or engine size - as long as the spaces alotted are feasible and believable I'm happy - but these plans aren't even the right shape and that wouldn't have really taken much effort to get right.
T20 has a frankly mouthwatering redesign of the classic Traveller Scout (which I've always hated) and I just feel a bit let down that the deckplans aren't up to the same superb quality as Bryan's line art and Ted's model.
It's just a shame. That's all I really wanted to say.
Crow
Ben W Bell
August 23rd, 2002, 06:44 AM
Increase by 120%? Doesn't that put it in the 20% inaccuracy bracket allowed for deckplans?
I agree with Scarecrow's comments though. It took me ages to convince him that the chairs were too close to the windows in his version of the scout.
I agree with Scarecrow's comments though. It took me ages to convince him that the chairs were too close to the windows in his version of the scout.
gardclan
August 23rd, 2002, 08:05 AM
I also agree that deckplans should be accurate. Its not normally a big issue with most players, but for gear head tech-junkies its a gnawing little irritation. Never big enough to be a true nuisance, but always there.
I've read Scarecrow's linked article, and have to conceed that he has a point. Being an engineer by trade, I can tell you that most equipment is designed from the inside out. Form almost always follows function... or is at least running hard to catch up.
HOWEVER,
I think we're also dealing with economics here. Resources are never in abundance, and time is always an issue. Attention to detail is often one of those resources. Time being what it is, I'd imagine that most artists start from the outside in, instead of the other way around. What you end up with is a nifty looking exterior image of the ship. If deck plans are bothered with at all, they are almost always an afterthought. Why? Because time is of the essance, good artwork is always needed, and art work costs money. Everybody always wants to know what the ship "looks like".
If I have to choose between deck plans that don't irritate me and rules that work well... I'm choosing the rules. I can always draw my own deckplans if I have to. (And almost always do anyway.) I hate to say it, but I'd much rather have resources spent on getting the rules right than on having the deckplans match up to my idea of correct.
Are my players going to notice the difference in fit, form, or function? Most likely not. Will the miss-match bother me? Maybe just a little. Is it going to stop me from touting T20 if the product is as good as I think it will be? Not on your life.
I've read Scarecrow's linked article, and have to conceed that he has a point. Being an engineer by trade, I can tell you that most equipment is designed from the inside out. Form almost always follows function... or is at least running hard to catch up.
HOWEVER,
I think we're also dealing with economics here. Resources are never in abundance, and time is always an issue. Attention to detail is often one of those resources. Time being what it is, I'd imagine that most artists start from the outside in, instead of the other way around. What you end up with is a nifty looking exterior image of the ship. If deck plans are bothered with at all, they are almost always an afterthought. Why? Because time is of the essance, good artwork is always needed, and art work costs money. Everybody always wants to know what the ship "looks like".
If I have to choose between deck plans that don't irritate me and rules that work well... I'm choosing the rules. I can always draw my own deckplans if I have to. (And almost always do anyway.) I hate to say it, but I'd much rather have resources spent on getting the rules right than on having the deckplans match up to my idea of correct.
Are my players going to notice the difference in fit, form, or function? Most likely not. Will the miss-match bother me? Maybe just a little. Is it going to stop me from touting T20 if the product is as good as I think it will be? Not on your life.
Scarecrow
August 23rd, 2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by BenBell:
It took me ages to convince him that the chairs were too close to the windows in his version of the scout.No it didn't. You mentioned it. I checked. You were right. I changed them. =D
Crow
It took me ages to convince him that the chairs were too close to the windows in his version of the scout.No it didn't. You mentioned it. I checked. You were right. I changed them. =D
Crow
William
August 23rd, 2002, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a published Traveller deckplan that was perfect.It's just a shame. That's all I really wanted to say.
Crow</font>[/QUOTE]:rolleyes:
I guess I just can't seem to get what the big deal is. For all the flame bait out there (near-c rocks, lesbian aslan in comfortable shoes, or ethically challenged merchants) this is not something that has ever gotten people too worked up. Especially for me in this case as it's probably the least broken deckplan ever published for Traveller.
You want broken? Dig out supplement 7. Look at the Empress Marava. 400 dt of deck plan in a 200 dt hull. Or the Fat Trader - 100 dt stuff in a 400 dt hull...
It's just a game. No more no less. The earth does not stop revolving just because a deck plan is 20% or even 100% off. It's still Traveller either way. It's in the imagination anyway - the pictures by Jessie DeGraff or you or anyone else are simply cotton candy. They make the time a little more pleasant - for who wants to go to the fair and not have candy? But it doesn't make any of them necessary.
After all, how many deck plans and three-d CGI's are in the first 3 LLB's?
William
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a published Traveller deckplan that was perfect.It's just a shame. That's all I really wanted to say.
Crow</font>[/QUOTE]:rolleyes:
I guess I just can't seem to get what the big deal is. For all the flame bait out there (near-c rocks, lesbian aslan in comfortable shoes, or ethically challenged merchants) this is not something that has ever gotten people too worked up. Especially for me in this case as it's probably the least broken deckplan ever published for Traveller.
You want broken? Dig out supplement 7. Look at the Empress Marava. 400 dt of deck plan in a 200 dt hull. Or the Fat Trader - 100 dt stuff in a 400 dt hull...
It's just a game. No more no less. The earth does not stop revolving just because a deck plan is 20% or even 100% off. It's still Traveller either way. It's in the imagination anyway - the pictures by Jessie DeGraff or you or anyone else are simply cotton candy. They make the time a little more pleasant - for who wants to go to the fair and not have candy? But it doesn't make any of them necessary.
After all, how many deck plans and three-d CGI's are in the first 3 LLB's?
William
Smiling DM
August 23rd, 2002, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by William:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarecrow:
It's just a shame. That's all I really wanted to say.
Crow:rolleyes:
I guess I just can't seem to get what the big deal is. [snip]
You want broken? Dig out supplement 7. Look at the Empress Marava. 400 dt of deck plan in a 200 dt hull. Or the Fat Trader - 100 dt stuff in a 400 dt hull...
</font>[/QUOTE]I have to side with Scarecrow on this one. For all the trouble that Traveller goes to for consistency of vessel construction, it seems reasonable to try and make them fit ergonomically.
As to the broken hulls of the past, what better a time than now to update those 'Classic' hulls. I mean, in an average Traveller game, you are only going to encounter 4 different ships. A seeker, a Far Trader, A subsidized merchant, and maybe a Broadsword. And I guess an outside chance of a Kininur, so 5 ships. Seems to me to be a fairly finite problem to engineer appropriate deckplans.
It's just a game. No more no less. The earth does not stop revolving just because a deck plan is 20% or even 100% off.
Agree 100% - if you and your players don't get into the gearhead mode, then the exisitng deckplans are great. So far none of my players have gotten into it, so I don't sweat such issues.
But there are other Traveller players who LOVE to sweat the details. I think this is just another aspect of it.
After all, how many deck plans and three-d CGI's are in the first 3 LLB's?
None - but then technology has changed in 25 years. They didn't have spreadsheets in the LBB's either . . . ;)
I am thrilled with Crow's work, and when he gets it finished (I know its a big task, I am patient) I intend to implement his version of the Seeker IMTU as an example of all of the ships.
And Hunter, I'd pay a good amount of money for Renderings and interior shots like Crow's just to add flavor to my game. Same with deck plans (I own all of the SJ versions, even though their size makes them almost unusable in a game) Nothing like visual aids to help immerse people into the genre, especially new players.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarecrow:
It's just a shame. That's all I really wanted to say.
Crow:rolleyes:
I guess I just can't seem to get what the big deal is. [snip]
You want broken? Dig out supplement 7. Look at the Empress Marava. 400 dt of deck plan in a 200 dt hull. Or the Fat Trader - 100 dt stuff in a 400 dt hull...
</font>[/QUOTE]I have to side with Scarecrow on this one. For all the trouble that Traveller goes to for consistency of vessel construction, it seems reasonable to try and make them fit ergonomically.
As to the broken hulls of the past, what better a time than now to update those 'Classic' hulls. I mean, in an average Traveller game, you are only going to encounter 4 different ships. A seeker, a Far Trader, A subsidized merchant, and maybe a Broadsword. And I guess an outside chance of a Kininur, so 5 ships. Seems to me to be a fairly finite problem to engineer appropriate deckplans.
It's just a game. No more no less. The earth does not stop revolving just because a deck plan is 20% or even 100% off.
Agree 100% - if you and your players don't get into the gearhead mode, then the exisitng deckplans are great. So far none of my players have gotten into it, so I don't sweat such issues.
But there are other Traveller players who LOVE to sweat the details. I think this is just another aspect of it.
After all, how many deck plans and three-d CGI's are in the first 3 LLB's?
None - but then technology has changed in 25 years. They didn't have spreadsheets in the LBB's either . . . ;)
I am thrilled with Crow's work, and when he gets it finished (I know its a big task, I am patient) I intend to implement his version of the Seeker IMTU as an example of all of the ships.
And Hunter, I'd pay a good amount of money for Renderings and interior shots like Crow's just to add flavor to my game. Same with deck plans (I own all of the SJ versions, even though their size makes them almost unusable in a game) Nothing like visual aids to help immerse people into the genre, especially new players.
vegascat
August 23rd, 2002, 11:58 AM
I do love well drawn deck plans. Spent many hours in classes trying different configurations. I guess it didn't help that I was an Architecture student at the time. I did learn a few rules to go by.
1. Form follows function. If it doesn't function the way it's drawn, then why bother.
2. Get your percentages and tonnages down before putting pencil -not pen- to paper.
3. Put the engines in the back. Seen some silly looking plans not done that way. The transport in FSOTSI for an example. What happens if it looses a drive.
4. If the crew can't get to it easily, they won't try and maintenance will suffer.
5. Put it all together in a logical plan.
6. Put a hull around what you have.
7. Add the extras, like chairs and bunks.
8. It helps to have landing gear and hatches.
9. If you thought you had enough bulkheads, wrong, double them. And add internal airlocks for military vessels.
10. When you think you are done, then you can use ink.
11. Put your name on the bottom when done.
Things to consider.
Do the crew have room for their heads?
Is the crew human sized?
Larger or smaller?
Lockers in accessable places?
Air locks on external doors?
Cargo hatches on bottom decks where loading can actually happen?
Ports for the crew to look out when the optic systems are out?
Follow the simple rules and it is hard to go wrong.
1. Form follows function. If it doesn't function the way it's drawn, then why bother.
2. Get your percentages and tonnages down before putting pencil -not pen- to paper.
3. Put the engines in the back. Seen some silly looking plans not done that way. The transport in FSOTSI for an example. What happens if it looses a drive.
4. If the crew can't get to it easily, they won't try and maintenance will suffer.
5. Put it all together in a logical plan.
6. Put a hull around what you have.
7. Add the extras, like chairs and bunks.
8. It helps to have landing gear and hatches.
9. If you thought you had enough bulkheads, wrong, double them. And add internal airlocks for military vessels.
10. When you think you are done, then you can use ink.
11. Put your name on the bottom when done.
Things to consider.
Do the crew have room for their heads?
Is the crew human sized?
Larger or smaller?
Lockers in accessable places?
Air locks on external doors?
Cargo hatches on bottom decks where loading can actually happen?
Ports for the crew to look out when the optic systems are out?
Follow the simple rules and it is hard to go wrong.
Rodina
August 23rd, 2002, 03:33 PM
Speaking of Scarecrow's (beautiful!) plans - I did notice a few weeks ago that the stateroom had a roll-around desk chair. Where the hell does he store it? I've got something approximately that size here in my home office (13' x 9.5') and it -STILL- gets in the way. I'd imagine something a bit more stowable.
aoehler
August 23rd, 2002, 05:38 PM
Just to stir the pot a little...
It's just a game!
I'm also an engineer by trade and I disagree with those who say that form follows function. I spend a lot of time trying to cram stuff into little spaces here and there. Have you ever looked inside of a notebook computer!
Also, think of passenger jets. The manufacturer delivers an airframe to the airline. The airline figures out how do fit the engines and passengers inside of the plane.
What about a submarine? Have you ever seen those bunks stacked three on top of each other and then surrounded by supplies or pipes or equipment?
It's just a game!
I'm also an engineer by trade and I disagree with those who say that form follows function. I spend a lot of time trying to cram stuff into little spaces here and there. Have you ever looked inside of a notebook computer!
Also, think of passenger jets. The manufacturer delivers an airframe to the airline. The airline figures out how do fit the engines and passengers inside of the plane.
What about a submarine? Have you ever seen those bunks stacked three on top of each other and then surrounded by supplies or pipes or equipment?
William
August 23rd, 2002, 11:53 PM
I think that Stormcrow and I approach Traveller from 2 very differnt points of view. I want to see Traveller as the overall consensual hallucination has seen it - hence I prefer Jesse DeGraff's work which can be seen in many G:T works for SJG or at http://www.vision-forge-graphics.com/jesse/traveller/trav_news.htm
Stormcrow prefers to see Traveller in his own mind's eye. And does a very good job of _that_.
Perhaps I am just another canonista. But I would still rather see an image of The Beowulf than the most star wars-ish take on a Type S Scout. I think the deckplans have simply become where this preference boils over.
Storm, you do a marvelous bit of CGI. But please forgive me if I say it isn't MTU they way that Mr. DeGraff's work is. Give me a Type S, my cat, and a star to aim at somewhere spinward and rimward of the Marches and then, mayhap, I'll be happy.
For the rest of my opinion, well, see my .sig
William
Stormcrow prefers to see Traveller in his own mind's eye. And does a very good job of _that_.
Perhaps I am just another canonista. But I would still rather see an image of The Beowulf than the most star wars-ish take on a Type S Scout. I think the deckplans have simply become where this preference boils over.
Storm, you do a marvelous bit of CGI. But please forgive me if I say it isn't MTU they way that Mr. DeGraff's work is. Give me a Type S, my cat, and a star to aim at somewhere spinward and rimward of the Marches and then, mayhap, I'll be happy.
For the rest of my opinion, well, see my .sig
William
gardclan
August 25th, 2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by AndyO:
<snip>...It's just a game! <snip>Yep... its just a game. Ever see football fanatics "discuss" their teams? Their arguements put us to shame!
<snip>...It's just a game! <snip>Yep... its just a game. Ever see football fanatics "discuss" their teams? Their arguements put us to shame!
vegascat
August 25th, 2002, 11:54 AM
Who has ever seen traveller players ever come to blows? FGMP-15 to the back of the head from close reange maybe, but not blows.
Now when soccer fans discuss their teams, people will end up in the hospital and morgue. Isn't soccer just a game?
Everyone has their own views on deckplans. Ain't it great we got a place to air em out. :D
Now when soccer fans discuss their teams, people will end up in the hospital and morgue. Isn't soccer just a game?
Everyone has their own views on deckplans. Ain't it great we got a place to air em out. :D
GypsyComet
September 4th, 2002, 12:40 AM
Sigh. This again.
The Marava and Beowulf plans are largely resolved by rescaling the grid to 1m. They end up a bit chunky externally, but are at least an acceptable volume when this is done.
The Type R, on the other hand, is among the better in print, volume-wise. Really. Most people who think it's screwy have forgotten to fudge the (rather thick) wings into the fuel tonnage, and have also forgotten that the cargo deck is a double-high.
The wedge Scout is also very close, and does have acceptable headroom if the interior decks are properly placed vertically and the various rooms are arranged correctly. I won't defend the upper and lower galleries, however...
The Marava and Beowulf plans are largely resolved by rescaling the grid to 1m. They end up a bit chunky externally, but are at least an acceptable volume when this is done.
The Type R, on the other hand, is among the better in print, volume-wise. Really. Most people who think it's screwy have forgotten to fudge the (rather thick) wings into the fuel tonnage, and have also forgotten that the cargo deck is a double-high.
The wedge Scout is also very close, and does have acceptable headroom if the interior decks are properly placed vertically and the various rooms are arranged correctly. I won't defend the upper and lower galleries, however...
vegascat
September 4th, 2002, 11:09 AM
Those upper and lower galleries in the Type S are very short. If you have a pet monkey to fetch the gear in the front of the lower deck, you might be able to use it. It does get real thin.
juanochoa
September 8th, 2002, 11:32 AM
Hm.
I'm a classic traveller fan, just stumbled upon this, finished a whole printer cartridge printing the lite rules... now..
Hehehe
http://pwp.007mundo.com/botch/
this is my site.. I'm willing to do 3d and 2d illos in exchange for games supplies.. I'm stuck in Colombia South america, and I wont be getting a US visa for a while..
So, if you're interested, drop me a line..
: )
I'm a classic traveller fan, just stumbled upon this, finished a whole printer cartridge printing the lite rules... now..
Hehehe
http://pwp.007mundo.com/botch/
this is my site.. I'm willing to do 3d and 2d illos in exchange for games supplies.. I'm stuck in Colombia South america, and I wont be getting a US visa for a while..
So, if you're interested, drop me a line..
: )
Tanuki
September 10th, 2002, 03:03 AM
I've posted a set of deckplans for the T20 scout-courier that actually fit in the hull pictured in the T20 book. See http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/
I've tried to stay reasonably faithful to the deckplan sketch, but I think these work better. I'll post a notice down in the Fleet NG as well. Comments are welcome there.
I've tried to stay reasonably faithful to the deckplan sketch, but I think these work better. I'll post a notice down in the Fleet NG as well. Comments are welcome there.
Swordsage
September 13th, 2002, 11:03 AM
It looks very good. I may just have to use this instead of the standard deckplans. It might help if you put in a key noting what each room or area is. Most are obvious like the bridge, staterooms and engineering, but a couple have left me wondering. Like the room next to the airlock. it looks like it could be the galley, a storeroom, or possibly the computer room. Also as you're walking out of the bridge there's an Iris valve and a hatch One probably leads to the Avioncs Equipment, but what's the other? Anyways I hope I'm not being too annoying. smile.gif Great work btw.
Vargas
September 13th, 2002, 07:41 PM
As much as I like 'crow's 'SR-71-ish' Type S, I personally find Bryan Gibson's scout/courier to be more in keeping with the overall Traveller 'school of design'. As always though, do what works for you. . .
(PS: I wish more folks would give us CGIs of starship interiors, it's better than trying to visualize it myself :D )
(PS: I wish more folks would give us CGIs of starship interiors, it's better than trying to visualize it myself :D )
RabidVargr
September 13th, 2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by AndyO:
Just to stir the pot a little...
What about a submarine? Have you ever seen those bunks stacked three on top of each other and then surrounded by supplies or pipes or equipment?My 2 cents, don't forget headroom. I'm 5'9, and I can't count the number of times I smacked my head on a pipe, valve, or handle on my sub. One of the guys was like 6'5, he got disability cause of back problems from walking hunched over for 6 months at a time. Not to mention head injury...
RV
Just to stir the pot a little...
What about a submarine? Have you ever seen those bunks stacked three on top of each other and then surrounded by supplies or pipes or equipment?My 2 cents, don't forget headroom. I'm 5'9, and I can't count the number of times I smacked my head on a pipe, valve, or handle on my sub. One of the guys was like 6'5, he got disability cause of back problems from walking hunched over for 6 months at a time. Not to mention head injury...
RV
Tanuki
September 14th, 2002, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Swordsage:
It looks very good. I may just have to use this instead of the standard deckplans. It might help if you put in a key noting what each room or area is. Most are obvious like the bridge, staterooms and engineering, but a couple have left me wondering. Like the room next to the airlock. it looks like it could be the galley, a storeroom, or possibly the computer room. Also as you're walking out of the bridge there's an Iris valve and a hatch One probably leads to the Avioncs Equipment, but what's the other? Anyways I hope I'm not being too annoying. smile.gif Great work btw.Thanks. I'll add in a key in the next few days. The room just aft of the bridge is the computer room, the rest of the stuff up there is avionics, as you guessed. The little room by the airlock is a storeroom -- galley supplies, mops, buckets, survival kits, etc. :)
It looks very good. I may just have to use this instead of the standard deckplans. It might help if you put in a key noting what each room or area is. Most are obvious like the bridge, staterooms and engineering, but a couple have left me wondering. Like the room next to the airlock. it looks like it could be the galley, a storeroom, or possibly the computer room. Also as you're walking out of the bridge there's an Iris valve and a hatch One probably leads to the Avioncs Equipment, but what's the other? Anyways I hope I'm not being too annoying. smile.gif Great work btw.Thanks. I'll add in a key in the next few days. The room just aft of the bridge is the computer room, the rest of the stuff up there is avionics, as you guessed. The little room by the airlock is a storeroom -- galley supplies, mops, buckets, survival kits, etc. :)
doomhunk
September 14th, 2002, 09:07 AM
Rabidvargr - oooo, so it's 'your' sub now is it :)
'Crow - I sympathise.... as a computer games producer I have spent my life forcing guys like you to get it right down to every last detail or we don't get paid because we failed the milestone because we didn't get external producer approval on your bit of modelling..... I think, however, that the aforementioned artist's plans were not 'taking the piss', leave those comments to our idiot MDs and CEOs please :)
I can live with tempero-spatial innacuracy.... TARDIS anybody?
Paul
'Crow - I sympathise.... as a computer games producer I have spent my life forcing guys like you to get it right down to every last detail or we don't get paid because we failed the milestone because we didn't get external producer approval on your bit of modelling..... I think, however, that the aforementioned artist's plans were not 'taking the piss', leave those comments to our idiot MDs and CEOs please :)
I can live with tempero-spatial innacuracy.... TARDIS anybody?
Paul
Tanuki
September 16th, 2002, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Swordsage:
It looks very good. I may just have to use this instead of the standard deckplans. It might help if you put in a key noting what each room or area is.The updated T20 Scoutship deckplans with key are now up.
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/
It looks very good. I may just have to use this instead of the standard deckplans. It might help if you put in a key noting what each room or area is.The updated T20 Scoutship deckplans with key are now up.
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/
Swordsage
September 16th, 2002, 10:04 AM
Thanks for the update Tanuki. This is perfect!
Craig
September 16th, 2002, 07:18 PM
About headroom:
In naval construction, terrestrial or otherwise, space is of the essence. Having been a guest of the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Juneau, I have seen first-hand how little space a human being needs. For instance, in the troop quarters we were in, the racks were stacked four or five high, and tucked in amidst assorted pipes and other fittings. Eighteenth century ships of the line tended to have gundecks with a minimum of headroom.
In addition, military designers are not overly concerned about crew comfort. For instance, getting into and out of the driver's compartment of an M577 command track is an exercise in contortionism. As for providing room for maintenance tasks, just look under the hood of any new sportscar.
Making sure that a given area is accessible is important, but don't be too generous in any vessel except a yacht or a luxury liner.
In naval construction, terrestrial or otherwise, space is of the essence. Having been a guest of the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Juneau, I have seen first-hand how little space a human being needs. For instance, in the troop quarters we were in, the racks were stacked four or five high, and tucked in amidst assorted pipes and other fittings. Eighteenth century ships of the line tended to have gundecks with a minimum of headroom.
In addition, military designers are not overly concerned about crew comfort. For instance, getting into and out of the driver's compartment of an M577 command track is an exercise in contortionism. As for providing room for maintenance tasks, just look under the hood of any new sportscar.
Making sure that a given area is accessible is important, but don't be too generous in any vessel except a yacht or a luxury liner.
doomhunk
September 17th, 2002, 05:52 PM
Nice work Tanuki, look forward to seeing more.
Liked Trader Jim's Mobile Bar (not Bra as I just mis-typed) & Grill.. is that the great man himself standing there by the scale diagram? :)
Liked Trader Jim's Mobile Bar (not Bra as I just mis-typed) & Grill.. is that the great man himself standing there by the scale diagram? :)
Tanuki
September 17th, 2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by doomhunk:
Nice work Tanuki, look forward to seeing more.
Liked Trader Jim's Mobile Bar (not Bra as I just mis-typed) & Grill.. is that the great man himself standing there by the scale diagram? :)Thanks. :)
Never having met him face to face I can't say whether Trader Jim wears a bra. I tend to doubt it, but one never knows.
Actually I pulled the Navy man from TravellerRPG.com (very nice art by Bryan Gibson, I think) into Campaign Cartographer, traced the outline and a few details (too much detail and it's just a black blob) and voila, a figure symbol. I intend to do a few more, but tracing by hand with a CAD program can be slow work. If CC2 has an autotrace function, I haven't found it yet.
Nice work Tanuki, look forward to seeing more.
Liked Trader Jim's Mobile Bar (not Bra as I just mis-typed) & Grill.. is that the great man himself standing there by the scale diagram? :)Thanks. :)
Never having met him face to face I can't say whether Trader Jim wears a bra. I tend to doubt it, but one never knows.
Actually I pulled the Navy man from TravellerRPG.com (very nice art by Bryan Gibson, I think) into Campaign Cartographer, traced the outline and a few details (too much detail and it's just a black blob) and voila, a figure symbol. I intend to do a few more, but tracing by hand with a CAD program can be slow work. If CC2 has an autotrace function, I haven't found it yet.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét