Jame
February 6th, 2007, 12:08 PM
An earlier post brings up a house rule of mine: even though Naval and Scout Bases tend to be located quite near Civilian ports, they are not strictly part of them because of security concerns - there will always be physical separation between them.
Just a thought, take what you will (hopefully something though).
Edit: Too bad I didn't get in on this from the ground; it's quite cool but longer than I want to look through.
Just a thought, take what you will (hopefully something though).
Edit: Too bad I didn't get in on this from the ground; it's quite cool but longer than I want to look through.
ravells
February 6th, 2007, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Hemdian:
Looking at the current plan view something's just dawned on me: there is a large customs/warehouse structure directly in line with the end of the runway. Given that occasionally aircraft fail to stop after landing, or conversely fail to gain significant altitude after take-off, this doesn't look safe. Has the potential to turn an accident into a disaster.
Regards PLST oooops! Thanks Hemdian, I'll shift it.
Ravs
Looking at the current plan view something's just dawned on me: there is a large customs/warehouse structure directly in line with the end of the runway. Given that occasionally aircraft fail to stop after landing, or conversely fail to gain significant altitude after take-off, this doesn't look safe. Has the potential to turn an accident into a disaster.
Regards PLST oooops! Thanks Hemdian, I'll shift it.
Ravs
Andrew Boulton
February 6th, 2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Hemdian:
How about an all-underground travel system (which you wouldn't actually have to model)? Now that we've been talking about Space:1999 I was remembering the travel tube system they used ... the travel pods look a lot like standard Traveller modular cutter pods. I could see a cutter dropping off a cargo pod that is then whisked away into a warehouse without having to unload it. Could be the basis of a containerised cargo system. And passenger pods would get sent to the Arrivals area of the Concourse building.Now *that* is brilliant! They could hook into the monorail network, too.
I'd lose the beanstalk. Pointless once you've got gravitics. I read recently that travel time to orbit would be several days.
How about an all-underground travel system (which you wouldn't actually have to model)? Now that we've been talking about Space:1999 I was remembering the travel tube system they used ... the travel pods look a lot like standard Traveller modular cutter pods. I could see a cutter dropping off a cargo pod that is then whisked away into a warehouse without having to unload it. Could be the basis of a containerised cargo system. And passenger pods would get sent to the Arrivals area of the Concourse building.Now *that* is brilliant! They could hook into the monorail network, too.
I'd lose the beanstalk. Pointless once you've got gravitics. I read recently that travel time to orbit would be several days.
Liam Devlin
February 6th, 2007, 05:23 PM
Hey now,
THAT is genius!
a train/ tube of Slowboat & modular cutter pods...passengers/ freight..and for those pods no longer (due to age/ wear & tear) "spaceworthy", a recyclable end of owneruse by a starport. Definitely makes the 30dt slow boat & 50dt cutter the port workhorse subcraft wouldn't it?
I like this idea!
THAT is genius!
a train/ tube of Slowboat & modular cutter pods...passengers/ freight..and for those pods no longer (due to age/ wear & tear) "spaceworthy", a recyclable end of owneruse by a starport. Definitely makes the 30dt slow boat & 50dt cutter the port workhorse subcraft wouldn't it?
I like this idea!
ravells
February 6th, 2007, 06:27 PM
I've been greebling like a greebler. Here are the offerings - The city in embryonic spiderweb stage (lots more work to be done there) and starport looking like some sort of chaotic chinatown (with spooky corners and dive bars for the unwary traveller (more work to be done there too, it's too chaotic). Also a render of the new scene without the beanstalk. The rest will have to wait until later.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/bryce.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/render2e.jpg
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/bryce.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/render2e.jpg
sid6.7
February 6th, 2007, 07:01 PM
this has got to be one of the neatest things i've seen done here at CoTi, thanks for doing it...
Liam Devlin
February 6th, 2007, 07:22 PM
Like both views ravs, great work here! <and dinnae forget to let your fingers rest now, hey?>
The hodge-podge, squalor-squatter town of lower skilled workers, shops, dives and the radial planned larger tenemets, businesses leans well to the image of this evolution ravs!
The hodge-podge, squalor-squatter town of lower skilled workers, shops, dives and the radial planned larger tenemets, businesses leans well to the image of this evolution ravs!
ravells
February 7th, 2007, 08:53 AM
This looks like a really good reference for this project: the evolution of the city of Ottawa from 1920 to the present day.
http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/2002_2006/sdki/visual/ottawa/index_e.php
Ravs
http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/2002_2006/sdki/visual/ottawa/index_e.php
Ravs
Liam Devlin
February 7th, 2007, 02:29 PM
An excellent progression model there ravs, good google-fu!
ravells
February 7th, 2007, 04:34 PM
The city is now complete, I just need to build the 'webs' of development coming off it (I think I've got the hang of this greeble thing) so it's not too circular around the edges but falls off rather than stops completely.
My question, given the scale, (it's always scale), how many people do you think live in the city? (assume it's the only habitation on the planet). Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of Thousands?
I can scale the star city to suit but this just seemed 'right' but I really don't know.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_12.jpg
Plan view
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_12a.jpg
My question, given the scale, (it's always scale), how many people do you think live in the city? (assume it's the only habitation on the planet). Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of Thousands?
I can scale the star city to suit but this just seemed 'right' but I really don't know.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_12.jpg
Plan view
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_12a.jpg
Hemdian
February 7th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
Hemdian: I was thinking of making a park around the pond with trees and gardens - after all what more would a starship crew want after being in space surrounded by metal for long periods of time.Sure, I remember you making a comment to that effect before. Doesn't mean that while they're stretching their legs down by the pond you can't flog them tea in polysterene cups, stale sandwiches, and packets a crisps ... all at a premium price! graemlins/file_22.gif
Regards PLST
Hemdian: I was thinking of making a park around the pond with trees and gardens - after all what more would a starship crew want after being in space surrounded by metal for long periods of time.Sure, I remember you making a comment to that effect before. Doesn't mean that while they're stretching their legs down by the pond you can't flog them tea in polysterene cups, stale sandwiches, and packets a crisps ... all at a premium price! graemlins/file_22.gif
Regards PLST
ravells
February 7th, 2007, 04:53 PM
That's what concessions are for!
R
R
Hemdian
February 7th, 2007, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
The whole process of transport of cargo containers to warehousing and out to the city needs more thought. When we play traveller we just talk about using grav pallets to move cargo from A to B. With the smaller ships we normally play with, the cargo gets sold straight out of the berth and it's the buyer who takes it away. Suggestions?
IMTU, 80% or more of cargo traffic through a starport is bulk cargo: containerised and carried by major shipping companies. Its only the smaller lots (private customers, etc) that have the sorts of cargo carried by Free Traders and the like. Some are containerised but most are merely palletised. The cargo generation rules only generate those latter types of lots.
Now in the modern world cargo containers are compatible with road and rail transport (as well as stacked on sea ships) and only have to content with normal Earth-like weather. But now I think about it it makes sense that when a bulk cargo ship unloads from orbit that those containers have to be small craft compatible and spaceworthy. In other words I think the modular cutter cargo module would be the defacto cargo container of the Imperium. Given that, I can see a mid-TL world still using cranes and flatbed trucks to move cargo containers (albeit they are now cylindrical), but high-TL worlds would have a more efficient way of moving them around … such as a tube system or monorail, with automatic stacking in warehouses. And like Liam pointed out, just as today’s containers are recycled into other uses, so too would our cutter modules.
To summarise: containerised bulk cargo offloaded in orbit and brought down by cutters, which land on the ‘Eagle’ pads, whisked away into automated warehouse storage. Meanwhile, Free Traders landing on the old hanger pads, offloading palletised cargos using the high tech equivalent of fork-lift onto trucks that drive out the main gate. And the whole thing in reverse for outgoing cargo.
Admittedly the cylindrical shape isn’t the most efficient, either in terms of filling or in terms of stacking. But I’m not sure that’s much of a problem. After all the same issue applies to drums and we still use them … these are just larger and lie on their side. Possible health and safety issue with cargo containers accidentally rolling? What do people think?
Regards PLST
The whole process of transport of cargo containers to warehousing and out to the city needs more thought. When we play traveller we just talk about using grav pallets to move cargo from A to B. With the smaller ships we normally play with, the cargo gets sold straight out of the berth and it's the buyer who takes it away. Suggestions?
IMTU, 80% or more of cargo traffic through a starport is bulk cargo: containerised and carried by major shipping companies. Its only the smaller lots (private customers, etc) that have the sorts of cargo carried by Free Traders and the like. Some are containerised but most are merely palletised. The cargo generation rules only generate those latter types of lots.
Now in the modern world cargo containers are compatible with road and rail transport (as well as stacked on sea ships) and only have to content with normal Earth-like weather. But now I think about it it makes sense that when a bulk cargo ship unloads from orbit that those containers have to be small craft compatible and spaceworthy. In other words I think the modular cutter cargo module would be the defacto cargo container of the Imperium. Given that, I can see a mid-TL world still using cranes and flatbed trucks to move cargo containers (albeit they are now cylindrical), but high-TL worlds would have a more efficient way of moving them around … such as a tube system or monorail, with automatic stacking in warehouses. And like Liam pointed out, just as today’s containers are recycled into other uses, so too would our cutter modules.
To summarise: containerised bulk cargo offloaded in orbit and brought down by cutters, which land on the ‘Eagle’ pads, whisked away into automated warehouse storage. Meanwhile, Free Traders landing on the old hanger pads, offloading palletised cargos using the high tech equivalent of fork-lift onto trucks that drive out the main gate. And the whole thing in reverse for outgoing cargo.
Admittedly the cylindrical shape isn’t the most efficient, either in terms of filling or in terms of stacking. But I’m not sure that’s much of a problem. After all the same issue applies to drums and we still use them … these are just larger and lie on their side. Possible health and safety issue with cargo containers accidentally rolling? What do people think?
Regards PLST
ravells
February 7th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Now *that* makes a hell of a lot of sense. It can be an oblong shape....that's not a problem. What size would you say a 'standard' cargo container was? Small enough to fit onto a free trader or a scout?
Or do you think that smaller cargo carriers use the forklifts?
It also makes sense from the point of view of those mag lev guns that shoot cargo containers into orbit.
Ravs
ps. any idea about how to calculate the number of people who live in the city?
R
Or do you think that smaller cargo carriers use the forklifts?
It also makes sense from the point of view of those mag lev guns that shoot cargo containers into orbit.
Ravs
ps. any idea about how to calculate the number of people who live in the city?
R
mbrinkhues
February 7th, 2007, 05:31 PM
I like the cargo containers featured in MT and GT. Basically the equivalent of the current day ISO containers it comes in a number of variants:
+ Container
+ Open framed sides, open top
+ Just the floor
and so on. In MT (and IIRC TNE) there is only the 4dton, fully closed version while GT has sizes from 8dton down in divisors of 2. Used aboard a modular cutter they will cause some wasted space but outside of that they will be easier to stow/handel and more flexibel when viewed over the Imperium as low tech worlds can better handel them. At 6.5m square by 13m long (rounded to the next 0.5m) the cutter modules are rather large (ISO container are 2.5m wide, 2.6 or 2.9m high and either 6.1 or 12.2m long)
I'd go with the smaller containers for the flexibility. Being norm-sized they can be handeled automatically on larger crafts (They are IRL) and are still small enough to be lugged around at TL5 using steam-cranes and such. Maybe add some deployabel rollers for ease of movement.
+ Container
+ Open framed sides, open top
+ Just the floor
and so on. In MT (and IIRC TNE) there is only the 4dton, fully closed version while GT has sizes from 8dton down in divisors of 2. Used aboard a modular cutter they will cause some wasted space but outside of that they will be easier to stow/handel and more flexibel when viewed over the Imperium as low tech worlds can better handel them. At 6.5m square by 13m long (rounded to the next 0.5m) the cutter modules are rather large (ISO container are 2.5m wide, 2.6 or 2.9m high and either 6.1 or 12.2m long)
I'd go with the smaller containers for the flexibility. Being norm-sized they can be handeled automatically on larger crafts (They are IRL) and are still small enough to be lugged around at TL5 using steam-cranes and such. Maybe add some deployabel rollers for ease of movement.
far-trader
February 7th, 2007, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
My question, given the scale, (it's always scale), how many people do you think live in the city? (assume it's the only habitation on the planet). Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of Thousands? My best off the cuff WAG at both scale and density is about 1K in the shanty town and 250K in the city proper. Could be more, or less.
My question, given the scale, (it's always scale), how many people do you think live in the city? (assume it's the only habitation on the planet). Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of Thousands? My best off the cuff WAG at both scale and density is about 1K in the shanty town and 250K in the city proper. Could be more, or less.
Hemdian
February 7th, 2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
It can be an oblong shape....that's not a problem. What size would you say a 'standard' cargo container was? Small enough to fit onto a free trader or a scout?
Or do you think that smaller cargo carriers use the forklifts?
No, I like round. smile.gif The Mineral class Cutter modules are 15m long x 6m diameter, so I'm not sure they'd fit too well in a Suleiman!
For 'small' starships I'd use contemporary-style containers and/or pallets. If you haven't bought GT my version is here. (http://www.trisen.com/sol/default.asp?topic=10&page=130)
It also makes sense from the point of view of those mag lev guns that shoot cargo containers into orbit.
Ooooo! Forget the beanstalk, your starport needs a mag lev cargo gun! :D
Regards PLST
It can be an oblong shape....that's not a problem. What size would you say a 'standard' cargo container was? Small enough to fit onto a free trader or a scout?
Or do you think that smaller cargo carriers use the forklifts?
No, I like round. smile.gif The Mineral class Cutter modules are 15m long x 6m diameter, so I'm not sure they'd fit too well in a Suleiman!
For 'small' starships I'd use contemporary-style containers and/or pallets. If you haven't bought GT my version is here. (http://www.trisen.com/sol/default.asp?topic=10&page=130)
It also makes sense from the point of view of those mag lev guns that shoot cargo containers into orbit.
Ooooo! Forget the beanstalk, your starport needs a mag lev cargo gun! :D
Regards PLST
Hemdian
February 7th, 2007, 07:29 PM
The city looks very cool. It also looks very planned. The starport looks good because its grown organically, and as new parts are added older parts become less than optimal. I hate to say this but the city’s highly planned look clashes with the starport’s organic growth look. I don’t mean aesthetically, I mean why would a society that plans a city like that allow the starport just to grow haphazardly.
Also, I think its too big at this stage of the game. Right amount of area, just way too tall. You can always bring in sky scrappers later, as the port becomes class A.
Regards PLST
Also, I think its too big at this stage of the game. Right amount of area, just way too tall. You can always bring in sky scrappers later, as the port becomes class A.
Regards PLST
far-trader
February 7th, 2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I like the cargo containers featured in MT and GT. Basically the equivalent of the current day ISO containers it comes in a number of variants:
+ Container
+ Open framed sides, open top
+ Just the floor
and so on. In MT (and IIRC TNE) there is only the 4dton, fully closed version while GT has sizes from 8dton down in divisors of 2.T20 has it similar to GT.
Coincidentally I'm playing with the same thing in SketchUp at the moment. I'm modelling them on currently used containers which match pretty well to nominal dtons. I say nominal because to actually fit a container, with actual thickness of materials, into a ship hold with it's own actual bulkhead thickness, and allow some minimal space for loading and such the 4dton containers for example come out closer to 1.8dton internal capacity. And that's a pretty tight fit in my opinion. I still call them 4dtons for cargo calculations since that's what they require on the deckplan.
Translating the Real World most common sizes seem to be a nominal 2dton container about 2.5m square and 2.5m long, a nominal 4dton container about 2.5m square and 5.5m long, a nominal 6dton container about 2.5m square and 8.5m long, and a nominal 8dton container about 2.5m square and 11.5m long, the way I'm modelling them.
I'm making mine very modular so you can as noted have just the flatbed, a staked flatbed, end boxed flatbed, side boxed flatbed, open top, of fully enclosed. The open versions all have the option of soft sides. The closed versions have the option of standard panels or armored panels, and the panels come with various features such as doors, windows, and environmental units.
The whole thing is based on expandability. So for example you can start out with just a nominal 2dton flatbed. Then add posts for a staked flatbed. Then add a second flatbed with the connecting bridge for a nominal 4dton staked flatbed. Then add two standard panels for a nominal 4dton end boxed flatbed. Etc. etc. Just buy the parts you need, assemble as desired, use them then rebuild to suit as needed.
Most small merchants would buy a few to ship their speculative cargo in and either trade for empties in an exchange program with the port or deliver the contents and wait to take back their own empties.
All small freight would be containerized and ready to ship. It would just be the speculative and miscellaneous cargo that would be open (boxes or small crates, typically partial freight lots broken up for whatever reasons) shipments and it would be up to the merchant to worry about bulk containers for easier handling.
I like the cargo containers featured in MT and GT. Basically the equivalent of the current day ISO containers it comes in a number of variants:
+ Container
+ Open framed sides, open top
+ Just the floor
and so on. In MT (and IIRC TNE) there is only the 4dton, fully closed version while GT has sizes from 8dton down in divisors of 2.T20 has it similar to GT.
Coincidentally I'm playing with the same thing in SketchUp at the moment. I'm modelling them on currently used containers which match pretty well to nominal dtons. I say nominal because to actually fit a container, with actual thickness of materials, into a ship hold with it's own actual bulkhead thickness, and allow some minimal space for loading and such the 4dton containers for example come out closer to 1.8dton internal capacity. And that's a pretty tight fit in my opinion. I still call them 4dtons for cargo calculations since that's what they require on the deckplan.
Translating the Real World most common sizes seem to be a nominal 2dton container about 2.5m square and 2.5m long, a nominal 4dton container about 2.5m square and 5.5m long, a nominal 6dton container about 2.5m square and 8.5m long, and a nominal 8dton container about 2.5m square and 11.5m long, the way I'm modelling them.
I'm making mine very modular so you can as noted have just the flatbed, a staked flatbed, end boxed flatbed, side boxed flatbed, open top, of fully enclosed. The open versions all have the option of soft sides. The closed versions have the option of standard panels or armored panels, and the panels come with various features such as doors, windows, and environmental units.
The whole thing is based on expandability. So for example you can start out with just a nominal 2dton flatbed. Then add posts for a staked flatbed. Then add a second flatbed with the connecting bridge for a nominal 4dton staked flatbed. Then add two standard panels for a nominal 4dton end boxed flatbed. Etc. etc. Just buy the parts you need, assemble as desired, use them then rebuild to suit as needed.
Most small merchants would buy a few to ship their speculative cargo in and either trade for empties in an exchange program with the port or deliver the contents and wait to take back their own empties.
All small freight would be containerized and ready to ship. It would just be the speculative and miscellaneous cargo that would be open (boxes or small crates, typically partial freight lots broken up for whatever reasons) shipments and it would be up to the merchant to worry about bulk containers for easier handling.
kaladorn
February 7th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Thoughts:
1) Cylinders are used as drums (stacked on end) and almost always contain liquid or some loose material like packing chips, sand, or something like that. They rarely if ever contain consumer packaged products, which seem to gravitate to box shapes.
2) Huge cylinders that tip over can roll around and be a big danger. Yes, canon says the cutter uses modular, vs. rectangular, modules. I like to assume all the pictures of the cutter have it carrying a 'mass particulate/liquid cargo module' and that an actual packaged goods module *is* rectangular. As pointed out, they stack better and are safer.
3) City Size: I agree with the prior poster. Buildings are too high right now. I'd say 100-200K in the city is good. I do think your ring roads/clear areas are too large (in scale, if the buildings are very tall, they'd be vast...). I'd make them a bit smaller.
4) I had no idea what a Greeble was nor what greebling was until today. Thanks!
5) Nice link to Ottawa (note my point of origin).
6) As to why the city looks organized and the startown disorganized: The star town is full of a lot of offworld folk, aliens, and oddballs. They scare urban planners... intentionally.
One thing you often see in modern airports is a split into two sections, one for cargo planes which has bays adjacent to warehouses, and one for passenger planes that have concourses and guest services (and customs) next to the park bays. This distinction could be used - put cargo bays and warehouses over on one side and passenger facilities and parkbays on the other.
Ravs: Continued nice work. Nice... hah... what a poor word. I am amazed by what you've done so far. I know my praise doesn't match Andrew's or Crow's (Long May Their Pixels Shine!) but I think you get the award for both neatest series of images and most useful (non Trollish, intelligent) discussion thread in support of.
Excellent work. And yes, I will continue to repeat that. :0)
1) Cylinders are used as drums (stacked on end) and almost always contain liquid or some loose material like packing chips, sand, or something like that. They rarely if ever contain consumer packaged products, which seem to gravitate to box shapes.
2) Huge cylinders that tip over can roll around and be a big danger. Yes, canon says the cutter uses modular, vs. rectangular, modules. I like to assume all the pictures of the cutter have it carrying a 'mass particulate/liquid cargo module' and that an actual packaged goods module *is* rectangular. As pointed out, they stack better and are safer.
3) City Size: I agree with the prior poster. Buildings are too high right now. I'd say 100-200K in the city is good. I do think your ring roads/clear areas are too large (in scale, if the buildings are very tall, they'd be vast...). I'd make them a bit smaller.
4) I had no idea what a Greeble was nor what greebling was until today. Thanks!
5) Nice link to Ottawa (note my point of origin).
6) As to why the city looks organized and the startown disorganized: The star town is full of a lot of offworld folk, aliens, and oddballs. They scare urban planners... intentionally.
One thing you often see in modern airports is a split into two sections, one for cargo planes which has bays adjacent to warehouses, and one for passenger planes that have concourses and guest services (and customs) next to the park bays. This distinction could be used - put cargo bays and warehouses over on one side and passenger facilities and parkbays on the other.
Ravs: Continued nice work. Nice... hah... what a poor word. I am amazed by what you've done so far. I know my praise doesn't match Andrew's or Crow's (Long May Their Pixels Shine!) but I think you get the award for both neatest series of images and most useful (non Trollish, intelligent) discussion thread in support of.
Excellent work. And yes, I will continue to repeat that. :0)
far-trader
February 7th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
...Yes, canon says the cutter uses modular, vs. rectangular, modules. I like to assume all the pictures of the cutter have it carrying a 'mass particulate/liquid cargo module' and that an actual packaged goods module *is* rectangular. As pointed out, they stack better and are safer.I like that reasoning too. And I actually like this version of the cutter (MT book) better because it's easier to see it as using different (including squared) modules. And it's so much closer in form to the Space 1999 Eagles smile.gif
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5156/eaglecutter3qo.jpg
...Yes, canon says the cutter uses modular, vs. rectangular, modules. I like to assume all the pictures of the cutter have it carrying a 'mass particulate/liquid cargo module' and that an actual packaged goods module *is* rectangular. As pointed out, they stack better and are safer.I like that reasoning too. And I actually like this version of the cutter (MT book) better because it's easier to see it as using different (including squared) modules. And it's so much closer in form to the Space 1999 Eagles smile.gif
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5156/eaglecutter3qo.jpg
far-trader
February 7th, 2007, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model? Sorry! I missed this when it was originally posted (page 9).
The height was 8.3m which is still not far off 3 decks.</font>[/QUOTE]No problem, it happens smile.gif Thanks for the answer, close enough in my books to be workable for sure.
I'd noticed the differnce in the GT stuff too, put it down to different artists or some odd perspective issue. No idea what the real reason is.
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Y'know it'd be interesting to see if you could fit 200 dTons worth of gear into a streamlined hull that was exactly 200 dTons displacement. I'm betting not. Again, it's not relevant to gameplay but pfffff.....
That sounds like a perfect place for a...
NEW THREAD CAST! :D
Click here to accept the challenge, or simply to watch those who do. (http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001151)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model? Sorry! I missed this when it was originally posted (page 9).
The height was 8.3m which is still not far off 3 decks.</font>[/QUOTE]No problem, it happens smile.gif Thanks for the answer, close enough in my books to be workable for sure.
I'd noticed the differnce in the GT stuff too, put it down to different artists or some odd perspective issue. No idea what the real reason is.
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Y'know it'd be interesting to see if you could fit 200 dTons worth of gear into a streamlined hull that was exactly 200 dTons displacement. I'm betting not. Again, it's not relevant to gameplay but pfffff.....
That sounds like a perfect place for a...
NEW THREAD CAST! :D
Click here to accept the challenge, or simply to watch those who do. (http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001151)
sid6.7
February 8th, 2007, 01:44 AM
i'd guess about2,500-5,000 for star town
and 750,000 for the city...
and 750,000 for the city...
mbrinkhues
February 8th, 2007, 03:42 AM
Far Trader:
I suggest to look up ISO container on the Web. Wiki has a starting point with ISO Container (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Container) and some information about weight etc.
IMHO your "tara" dtons are to high compared to real world boxes. Most containers won't be pressurised hulls but simple steel boxes with sides similar to a JU52 plane (Wellblech, that wavy-presses steel) for added stability
Edit:
I do not mean "copy ISO containers 1:1". More use them as a ready-made starting point.
Actually I can see ISB (Imperial Standards Bureau) Containers to start with a basic cube, say 2x2x2m or "Starship useabel deck hight - Space for forklift-equivalent" per side. And bigger ones using multiple length, maybe even multiple modules weldet together and the inner wall ommitted/left out.
I suggest to look up ISO container on the Web. Wiki has a starting point with ISO Container (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Container) and some information about weight etc.
IMHO your "tara" dtons are to high compared to real world boxes. Most containers won't be pressurised hulls but simple steel boxes with sides similar to a JU52 plane (Wellblech, that wavy-presses steel) for added stability
Edit:
I do not mean "copy ISO containers 1:1". More use them as a ready-made starting point.
Actually I can see ISB (Imperial Standards Bureau) Containers to start with a basic cube, say 2x2x2m or "Starship useabel deck hight - Space for forklift-equivalent" per side. And bigger ones using multiple length, maybe even multiple modules weldet together and the inner wall ommitted/left out.
Liam Devlin
February 8th, 2007, 04:11 AM
Hmmm. Population.
Given that the highrises maybe too big for the starport (now at C-class)...before greeble-adjustment,
I'd hazard sid6.7 is close at 2.5K-5K on the startown, but I'd hazard the "city" settlement a bit lower ceiling at 250K. Let's call it 500K tops (UWP pop 5).
lets try this formula for worlds pop 5 through pop 8:
+Startown total = 1% of planet of total population (250K to 500K x 0.01% = 2.5K to 5K). Lets say 5K shall we?
+Figuring in what portion of SPA (Cargo/ Passengers/ Ship's services/ Security/ Shuttle crews) out of that 1% of startown works there.
A-class=(10%)of total, or 500 personnel
B-class= (8%) of total, or 400 personnel
C-class= (6%) of total, or 300 personnel*
D-class= (4%) of total, or 200 personnel
E-class= (2%) of total, or 100 personnel.
Okay with me so far?
Using the same Starport percentages now to determine the total number of sophonts employed by the port (in all of its facets), living in the city.
+A-class = 5K
+B-class = 4K
+C-class = 3K
+D-class = 2K
+E-class = 1K
Add the two sums. Our C-class Port now has 3500 or 3.5K working employees directly in the SPA. One could easily say they all live in the startown as well (3.5K out of 5K). How's that for SWAG?
Given that the highrises maybe too big for the starport (now at C-class)...before greeble-adjustment,
I'd hazard sid6.7 is close at 2.5K-5K on the startown, but I'd hazard the "city" settlement a bit lower ceiling at 250K. Let's call it 500K tops (UWP pop 5).
lets try this formula for worlds pop 5 through pop 8:
+Startown total = 1% of planet of total population (250K to 500K x 0.01% = 2.5K to 5K). Lets say 5K shall we?
+Figuring in what portion of SPA (Cargo/ Passengers/ Ship's services/ Security/ Shuttle crews) out of that 1% of startown works there.
A-class=(10%)of total, or 500 personnel
B-class= (8%) of total, or 400 personnel
C-class= (6%) of total, or 300 personnel*
D-class= (4%) of total, or 200 personnel
E-class= (2%) of total, or 100 personnel.
Okay with me so far?
Using the same Starport percentages now to determine the total number of sophonts employed by the port (in all of its facets), living in the city.
+A-class = 5K
+B-class = 4K
+C-class = 3K
+D-class = 2K
+E-class = 1K
Add the two sums. Our C-class Port now has 3500 or 3.5K working employees directly in the SPA. One could easily say they all live in the startown as well (3.5K out of 5K). How's that for SWAG?
Pickles
February 8th, 2007, 09:03 AM
Oops. My mistake.
far-trader
February 8th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Far Trader:
I suggest to look up ISO container on the Web...
I do not mean "copy ISO containers 1:1". More use them as a ready-made starting point. Thanks Michael, that's exactly what I did the first time I looked at doing some Traveller containers, ages ago smile.gif
I've moved the discussion to it's own thread to avoid cluttering up this one.
Click here to continue the discussion of cargo container standards. (http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000316)
Far Trader:
I suggest to look up ISO container on the Web...
I do not mean "copy ISO containers 1:1". More use them as a ready-made starting point. Thanks Michael, that's exactly what I did the first time I looked at doing some Traveller containers, ages ago smile.gif
I've moved the discussion to it's own thread to avoid cluttering up this one.
Click here to continue the discussion of cargo container standards. (http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000316)
Liam Devlin
February 9th, 2007, 03:43 AM
Thank you Far Trader for the sidebar & new thread link!
Liam Devlin
February 9th, 2007, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
I'll echo the general "high-rises too big" sentiment. Liam's got it right on the numbers, IMO. You're looking at something like a 50,000 per square kilometre population density, there. You need to be very short of space for that to happen.
Trust me: http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg Definitely packed like sardines there Brom-great linkage!
And Thank you on the numbers! I've been web-mining looking at the population vs large airport/starport figures of late in conjunction with this project, albeit its sketchy, and takes no consideration of any automated help (robots, mass labor saving devices associated with Tech levels). Michael Brinkhues is our guy for seaport-starport extrapolations.
I'll echo the general "high-rises too big" sentiment. Liam's got it right on the numbers, IMO. You're looking at something like a 50,000 per square kilometre population density, there. You need to be very short of space for that to happen.
Trust me: http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg Definitely packed like sardines there Brom-great linkage!
And Thank you on the numbers! I've been web-mining looking at the population vs large airport/starport figures of late in conjunction with this project, albeit its sketchy, and takes no consideration of any automated help (robots, mass labor saving devices associated with Tech levels). Michael Brinkhues is our guy for seaport-starport extrapolations.
ravells
February 9th, 2007, 08:25 AM
Sorry I've come down with some evil 'flu thing, looking at the puter for longer than 5 mins hurts my eyes. More when I get better.
Ravs
Ravs
Liam Devlin
February 10th, 2007, 03:47 AM
Hope you get better soon ravs! Vitamin A helps the eyes over exposure to our compy-screens, so the health jockey's in the family tell me.
marvo
February 13th, 2007, 12:19 PM
I hope ravs is feeling better soon. This is one of the most interesting threads for quite a while.
ravells
February 13th, 2007, 03:15 PM
I'm feeling much better now and have been working today on the next iteration of the starport to bring it up to 'B' status (but not too many hours) - I'm trying to get to grips with the cargo system. How many separate areas there need to be (e.g. import / export / transhipment / hazmat / high value).
I'm hoping to have the B class ready tomorrow sometime for comments - and also some surprises.
cheers
Ravs
I'm hoping to have the B class ready tomorrow sometime for comments - and also some surprises.
cheers
Ravs
sgbrown
February 13th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
I'll echo the general "high-rises too big" sentiment. Liam's got it right on the numbers, IMO. You're looking at something like a 50,000 per square kilometre population density, there. You need to be very short of space for that to happen.
Trust me: http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg Or have a really good reason for cramming into a small space. Political reasons come to mind when Hong Kong is the example given, but there may be others as well.
I'll echo the general "high-rises too big" sentiment. Liam's got it right on the numbers, IMO. You're looking at something like a 50,000 per square kilometre population density, there. You need to be very short of space for that to happen.
Trust me: http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg Or have a really good reason for cramming into a small space. Political reasons come to mind when Hong Kong is the example given, but there may be others as well.
Liam Devlin
February 14th, 2007, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
I'll echo the general "high-rises too big" sentiment. Liam's got it right on the numbers, IMO. You're looking at something like a 50,000 per square kilometre population density, there. You need to be very short of space for that to happen.
Trust me: http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg Or have a really good reason for cramming into a small space. Political reasons come to mind when Hong Kong is the example given, but there may be others as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, an island on a Hydrosphere 9-A world less than TL-13 (gravitic cities) starport would be a practical one; a small balkanized world city- state would be another one (mirroring Hong Kong's status pre 1999 vs. 'mainland' Red China.) I'm sure there are a few more.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
I'll echo the general "high-rises too big" sentiment. Liam's got it right on the numbers, IMO. You're looking at something like a 50,000 per square kilometre population density, there. You need to be very short of space for that to happen.
Trust me: http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg Or have a really good reason for cramming into a small space. Political reasons come to mind when Hong Kong is the example given, but there may be others as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, an island on a Hydrosphere 9-A world less than TL-13 (gravitic cities) starport would be a practical one; a small balkanized world city- state would be another one (mirroring Hong Kong's status pre 1999 vs. 'mainland' Red China.) I'm sure there are a few more.
ravells
February 15th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Here is the next iteration - I'm thinking about cargo. Cargo is stored in large rectangular containers which are stored in a central area, which you can see in the first picture. This area has overhead winches which store the containers neatly and memorise the locations of the containers.
On the XT line are all the brokerages and the import/export membrane between the starport and the outside world. You can see the this line stretching north-south in the overhead view.
Huge water storage tanks have been built. These can take very large ships at a pinch.
The skyscrapers have been reduced from the obscenely large size they were and a smattering of buildings built around them.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13di.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13c.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13e.jpg
On the XT line are all the brokerages and the import/export membrane between the starport and the outside world. You can see the this line stretching north-south in the overhead view.
Huge water storage tanks have been built. These can take very large ships at a pinch.
The skyscrapers have been reduced from the obscenely large size they were and a smattering of buildings built around them.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13di.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13c.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_13e.jpg
Liam Devlin
February 16th, 2007, 01:50 AM
Great views, Ravs! I like the canted "inbound viewport/ pilot's eye-POV very much. :cool:
far-trader
February 16th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Well I need to post something positive to restore some karma points :rolleyes: and this is a great place. I can't agree more with Liam, that is a fantastic view of approach ravs, five stars fer ya* and my thanks for your contributions to Travller coolness :cool: Now don't go getting sick again, ya'ear :D
* ah wonder if you recall when we had stars fer the off'ring smile.gif an ah wonder if ah already give ya some back then :confused: oh well, tis done now, g'nite all, sleepy time...
* ah wonder if you recall when we had stars fer the off'ring smile.gif an ah wonder if ah already give ya some back then :confused: oh well, tis done now, g'nite all, sleepy time...
TheEngineer
February 16th, 2007, 02:43 AM
Just great !
And this goes on .. smile.gif
Thanx ravs..
And this goes on .. smile.gif
Thanx ravs..
ravells
February 16th, 2007, 02:49 PM
Not much today. More berths to bring it up to a class B starport together with a shipyard in progress in the background.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_14.jpg
And here's the TAS building
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_14a.jpg
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_14.jpg
And here's the TAS building
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_14a.jpg
Liam Devlin
February 16th, 2007, 08:54 PM
OHH YEAH! :cool:
Well done ravs! The B-class Shipyard looks like its shaping up nicely here. Nice touch withe TAS building!
Well done ravs! The B-class Shipyard looks like its shaping up nicely here. Nice touch withe TAS building!
MR TEK
February 16th, 2007, 10:44 PM
You know if this is what ravs thinks is cast off work, nand not up to the standards he wants, I am almost scared to see the finished work!
I could take many of the images from this thread, from EVERYBODY and use them raw and feel I had some real quailty work to show off.
I could take many of the images from this thread, from EVERYBODY and use them raw and feel I had some real quailty work to show off.
Hemdian
February 17th, 2007, 10:32 AM
This is looking way cool. :cool:
There seems to be a new terminal building with a tower on it. I'd halve the size of the tower, and remove the pads nearest the terminal (so 13 pads on each spur instead of 15) ... they look a bit close if there was a mishap.
Other than that I'm guessing the new terminal will have its own gate through the XT line. This will cause a spurt of new growth on the outside around that area. And how about parking for visitors? (All those air/rafts and speeders in long-term parking.) It looks like terminal 2 is more for passengers and terminal 1 (the original concourse) is becoming dedicated to cargo.
I notice the pond and garden are gone. And can't figure out the blue thing nearby.
Regards PLST
There seems to be a new terminal building with a tower on it. I'd halve the size of the tower, and remove the pads nearest the terminal (so 13 pads on each spur instead of 15) ... they look a bit close if there was a mishap.
Other than that I'm guessing the new terminal will have its own gate through the XT line. This will cause a spurt of new growth on the outside around that area. And how about parking for visitors? (All those air/rafts and speeders in long-term parking.) It looks like terminal 2 is more for passengers and terminal 1 (the original concourse) is becoming dedicated to cargo.
I notice the pond and garden are gone. And can't figure out the blue thing nearby.
Regards PLST
ravells
February 21st, 2007, 08:00 PM
I'm taking a break from putting it up to a class A and instead am texturing various parts of the starport, here is the start of a few pictures to come. This is a night landing in mist.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/render-2.jpg
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/render-2.jpg
Space Cadet
February 22nd, 2007, 01:35 AM
Neat!
Just curious though, have you included the commercial Starline Terminals? As I see it, there would be three kinds of travellers passing through this starport.
1) You have the people who own Starships, and their crews.
2) You have the people who charter or hire a Starship.
3) You have passengers with tickets on major starlines. I think this group would go through a different sort of terminal than the rest.
I think a major Starliner wouldn't land on a planet's surface, instead it would send shuttles to pick up passengers and crew and board the starship in orbit.
I believe the procedure for boarding a Starliner would resemble more the boarding of a ocean vessel rather than an airliner. The "Airliners" would be the shuttles, these basically have rows of seats in them and a bathroom or two, there would be a pilot and copilot and some flight attendents. I don't really know whether they would serve meals onboard the shuttles on the way up to the Starliner, it really doesn't take long to reach orbit. On the other hand the Space Shuttle takes some time to catch up with the Space Station, so it might take at least an hour or so, depending where the Starship is.
The luggage passengers would take with them is likely to be heavier than for airlines, probably "steam trunks" would be most common.
I would think starports would be quieter places than airports. Interstellar travel is expensive, the most economical way to travel would be in large megacarriers, the only problem is in finding enough passengers to fill in all the state rooms. Low Berth passengers would probably travel by seperate cargo ship, they would go into their low berths before they entered the starship, the low berths would be loaded aboard and then unloaded at the destination, and the passengers would be brought out of hibernation under the supervision of a skilled physician. Most likely the passengers would never see the starship which transported them, all they'd know is that they'd entered the low berth on one planet and exited from it on another. Of course their is provision for bringing low berth passengers out of hibernation onboard starships, but this should happen only in emergencies, such as when the starship is under attack or is about to crash. Another interesting idea is to have low berths that automatically cycle passengers out of hybernation when the power is cut off, using stored power to do this.
One interesting scenario is for passengers to be brought out of low berths from ships that have already crashed, perhaps the low berth passengers are the only survivors, or perhaps the middle and high passage passengers along with crew evacuated the starship before it crashed, leaving the low berth passengers to their fate.
Just curious though, have you included the commercial Starline Terminals? As I see it, there would be three kinds of travellers passing through this starport.
1) You have the people who own Starships, and their crews.
2) You have the people who charter or hire a Starship.
3) You have passengers with tickets on major starlines. I think this group would go through a different sort of terminal than the rest.
I think a major Starliner wouldn't land on a planet's surface, instead it would send shuttles to pick up passengers and crew and board the starship in orbit.
I believe the procedure for boarding a Starliner would resemble more the boarding of a ocean vessel rather than an airliner. The "Airliners" would be the shuttles, these basically have rows of seats in them and a bathroom or two, there would be a pilot and copilot and some flight attendents. I don't really know whether they would serve meals onboard the shuttles on the way up to the Starliner, it really doesn't take long to reach orbit. On the other hand the Space Shuttle takes some time to catch up with the Space Station, so it might take at least an hour or so, depending where the Starship is.
The luggage passengers would take with them is likely to be heavier than for airlines, probably "steam trunks" would be most common.
I would think starports would be quieter places than airports. Interstellar travel is expensive, the most economical way to travel would be in large megacarriers, the only problem is in finding enough passengers to fill in all the state rooms. Low Berth passengers would probably travel by seperate cargo ship, they would go into their low berths before they entered the starship, the low berths would be loaded aboard and then unloaded at the destination, and the passengers would be brought out of hibernation under the supervision of a skilled physician. Most likely the passengers would never see the starship which transported them, all they'd know is that they'd entered the low berth on one planet and exited from it on another. Of course their is provision for bringing low berth passengers out of hibernation onboard starships, but this should happen only in emergencies, such as when the starship is under attack or is about to crash. Another interesting idea is to have low berths that automatically cycle passengers out of hybernation when the power is cut off, using stored power to do this.
One interesting scenario is for passengers to be brought out of low berths from ships that have already crashed, perhaps the low berth passengers are the only survivors, or perhaps the middle and high passage passengers along with crew evacuated the starship before it crashed, leaving the low berth passengers to their fate.
ravells
February 22nd, 2007, 09:27 AM
Hi space cadet,
Yes there is a concourse for passengers who are taking a shuttle up to liners in space / the highport. If you look at my message of 16th Feb, first picture, you will be able to see the concourse just below the centre of the picture with two shuttles parked in front of it.
cheers
Ravs
Yes there is a concourse for passengers who are taking a shuttle up to liners in space / the highport. If you look at my message of 16th Feb, first picture, you will be able to see the concourse just below the centre of the picture with two shuttles parked in front of it.
cheers
Ravs
sgbrown
February 22nd, 2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
I'm taking a break from putting it up to a class A and instead am texturing various parts of the starport, here is the start of a few pictures to come. This is a night landing in mist.
Ravs
Awesome! Even when Ravs takes a break he produces great work.
I'm taking a break from putting it up to a class A and instead am texturing various parts of the starport, here is the start of a few pictures to come. This is a night landing in mist.
Ravs
Awesome! Even when Ravs takes a break he produces great work.
marvo
February 22nd, 2007, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Space Cadet:
One interesting scenario is for passengers to be brought out of low berths from ships that have already crashed, perhaps the low berth passengers are the only survivors, or perhaps the middle and high passage passengers along with crew evacuated the starship before it crashed, leaving the low berth passengers to their fate. I have used this scenario when my group of players changed in the middle of a campaign. The new players were found in low berths on a crashed ship they were recovering from a backwater planet.
One interesting scenario is for passengers to be brought out of low berths from ships that have already crashed, perhaps the low berth passengers are the only survivors, or perhaps the middle and high passage passengers along with crew evacuated the starship before it crashed, leaving the low berth passengers to their fate. I have used this scenario when my group of players changed in the middle of a campaign. The new players were found in low berths on a crashed ship they were recovering from a backwater planet.
Liam Devlin
February 23rd, 2007, 04:11 AM
Good Shtuff, ravs!
ravells
February 23rd, 2007, 07:50 AM
Thank you, all! smile.gif
Ravs
Ravs
ravells
February 24th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Here is an internal shot of the multi-story. An S class scout and its crew. (I'm proud of the wall - the ship could use a lot more work).
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/render2g.jpg
The inspiration of this shot is from one of my favourite films, 'Crimson Tide'. The lighting in that film was just superb....as you can see. I'm working on getting there, but I'm nowhere close.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Image3.jpg
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/render2g.jpg
The inspiration of this shot is from one of my favourite films, 'Crimson Tide'. The lighting in that film was just superb....as you can see. I'm working on getting there, but I'm nowhere close.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Image3.jpg
Ravs
atpollard
February 24th, 2007, 10:39 PM
Nice work. I am always fascinated by the things that people draw inspiration from.
kaladorn
February 25th, 2007, 12:48 AM
Ravs,
You continue to amaze.
I only have one minor (yeah, he says, as he gets out the large power spanner) issue. I guess it's because I have some human geography training and studied Von Thunen and some other oddball theories like Central Place Theory and so on. It seems to me the layout outside the XT line is a bit problematic as it stands.
On a flat plane, with equal access to various resources, your people will tend to evenly distribute. There will be several classes of business (some common, some less common, some rare) and if you map out each separately, they'll tend to distribute evenly across the overall space.
Right now, the space between 'Racoon City' (or whatever you are calling it) and the Port has a high density cluster then lots of separate individual multi-storey buildings. That just doesn't quite sit well with me. Neither does the way the greebler crushed together the main buildings.
With any amount of actual space, there would be clear traffic lanes. The current overhead shows some *really* constricted areas for traffic (be it maglev, groundcar, air raft, etc) and some really open ones... right beside one another. This sort of clustering only tends to happen with really good reasons. And it is an urban planning failure I suspect. :0)
Now, how could we rationlize this a bit, or at least make it a bit more aesthetic? We could spread out the one large cluster into several smaller clusters. We could populate the space between the multi-storey buildings with a bunch of one-storey buildings (homes and such). We could (I mean 'the royal we' which really means Ravs) also see that a lot of terrain was added - trees, small hills, ponds, roadways, etc. With all of that stuff in place, it wouldn't look so much like a plain across which people had distributed themselves in an illogical (and economically odd) fashion.
If you look at overviews of real cities, you tend to see a central node grow up, but then as it does, a low-storey sprawl occurs if the geography allows. If you have something like a river going through or a seaside or something, people sprawl along it, claiming the good real estate, in preference to equal distribution sprawl.
Then, someone develops some core business in the burbs, and another (smaller) business node develops, smaller than the core, but getting its own sprawl around it. The thing is, the sprawl density change rarely looks as dramatic (yours transitions from a high desnity middle to very scattered buildings really fast) as what we see in your diagram and almost always follows some geography (which we really don't have on the flat plain between the Starport and Raccoon City).
So, if you add some intervening terrain, green belts, roads, etc, you can probably justify someof the layout, but the transition from high density urban greebling to scattered single buildings out to be more gradual as well.
That's just an aesthetic complaint with the area between Racoon City and the Port. The Port is coming along smashingly and the City is fine too.
Great work. Feel free to ignore us critics if you want :0)
You continue to amaze.
I only have one minor (yeah, he says, as he gets out the large power spanner) issue. I guess it's because I have some human geography training and studied Von Thunen and some other oddball theories like Central Place Theory and so on. It seems to me the layout outside the XT line is a bit problematic as it stands.
On a flat plane, with equal access to various resources, your people will tend to evenly distribute. There will be several classes of business (some common, some less common, some rare) and if you map out each separately, they'll tend to distribute evenly across the overall space.
Right now, the space between 'Racoon City' (or whatever you are calling it) and the Port has a high density cluster then lots of separate individual multi-storey buildings. That just doesn't quite sit well with me. Neither does the way the greebler crushed together the main buildings.
With any amount of actual space, there would be clear traffic lanes. The current overhead shows some *really* constricted areas for traffic (be it maglev, groundcar, air raft, etc) and some really open ones... right beside one another. This sort of clustering only tends to happen with really good reasons. And it is an urban planning failure I suspect. :0)
Now, how could we rationlize this a bit, or at least make it a bit more aesthetic? We could spread out the one large cluster into several smaller clusters. We could populate the space between the multi-storey buildings with a bunch of one-storey buildings (homes and such). We could (I mean 'the royal we' which really means Ravs) also see that a lot of terrain was added - trees, small hills, ponds, roadways, etc. With all of that stuff in place, it wouldn't look so much like a plain across which people had distributed themselves in an illogical (and economically odd) fashion.
If you look at overviews of real cities, you tend to see a central node grow up, but then as it does, a low-storey sprawl occurs if the geography allows. If you have something like a river going through or a seaside or something, people sprawl along it, claiming the good real estate, in preference to equal distribution sprawl.
Then, someone develops some core business in the burbs, and another (smaller) business node develops, smaller than the core, but getting its own sprawl around it. The thing is, the sprawl density change rarely looks as dramatic (yours transitions from a high desnity middle to very scattered buildings really fast) as what we see in your diagram and almost always follows some geography (which we really don't have on the flat plain between the Starport and Raccoon City).
So, if you add some intervening terrain, green belts, roads, etc, you can probably justify someof the layout, but the transition from high density urban greebling to scattered single buildings out to be more gradual as well.
That's just an aesthetic complaint with the area between Racoon City and the Port. The Port is coming along smashingly and the City is fine too.
Great work. Feel free to ignore us critics if you want :0)
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 07:29 AM
Thanks Kaladorn. I was lazy with the city. The idea was to have structures 'spider webbing' from the main avenue of Raccoon city, which is on the to-do list. I comletely agree that the placement of the buildings is too random at present. I may cheat with the city and just plonk down a texture map of a sattelite image. At the moment, I'm taking a break from the starport (I'm a bit burnt out on it) and am making little scenes of various parts of it.
I really want to do an internal of the shuttle concourse and the cargo / brokerage areas next but it's all about finding the time.
Ravs
I really want to do an internal of the shuttle concourse and the cargo / brokerage areas next but it's all about finding the time.
Ravs
atpollard
February 26th, 2007, 09:03 AM
For what it may be worth:
City growth is shaped by government regulations more than anything else. There are some "recently" planted cities in the UK with definite limits and broad green belts. Those open areas exist because the government zoning says that that is the only use permitted in that area. The same holds for building height - the down town is only as tall as economics will support and governments will allow.
Once upon a time, the US government offered incentives to fill in swamps, now these same swamps are "protected wetlands".
In the end, Raccoon City will look like whatever the officials (that means you, Ravs) say it will look like. Just like in the real world.
City growth is shaped by government regulations more than anything else. There are some "recently" planted cities in the UK with definite limits and broad green belts. Those open areas exist because the government zoning says that that is the only use permitted in that area. The same holds for building height - the down town is only as tall as economics will support and governments will allow.
Once upon a time, the US government offered incentives to fill in swamps, now these same swamps are "protected wetlands".
In the end, Raccoon City will look like whatever the officials (that means you, Ravs) say it will look like. Just like in the real world.
su_liam
April 11th, 2007, 02:22 AM
So how is this thing coming?
ravells
April 11th, 2007, 05:03 AM
I do intend to come back to it, especially the layout of the city and the completion of the starport to a A class starport, - but not just yet.
Ravs
Ravs
Berg
April 11th, 2007, 08:25 PM
Beautiful stuff! smile.gif
Can others use this for gaming?
Sending pics like these in VGT gaming makes a world of difference! smile.gif
Can others use this for gaming?
Sending pics like these in VGT gaming makes a world of difference! smile.gif
ravells
April 12th, 2007, 04:59 AM
If you want to use any of the pictures as gaming aids, please go ahead.
Ravs
Ravs
robject
April 12th, 2007, 09:31 AM
Thanks Ravs, you've given us lots of inspiration. A picture paints a thousand words.
ravells
April 12th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Thanks Robject, but I'm not so sure about the pictures.
This may seem a little odd coming from me, but one of the real strengths of RPGs to my mind is that the GM can verbally describe a location to four people around a table and each of them will paint the location in their own minds with their own pictures with a dollop of emotional fuzz around the edges which will make the scene right for them. If the GM hands out a full colour picture of the scene, then the players are limited to that image.
For me the best Adventures (e.g. the LBBs) are the ones which have very spare line drawings (and not many of them) and (by today's standards) crude maps. Somehow to me they seem to conjure up more than a high resolution 3d model in glorious detail.
I think there is room for detailed colour pictures in illustrating adventures but these should be carefully selected and should be few and far between. Maybe just the cover and at a pinch, one or two illustrations of items in which there can be only a little imaginative variance of what the players may imagine that scene to look like.
I really wish I could draw (or rather had the patience and drive to practice)because I'd be a lot happier producing line drawings than 3d art.
Ravs
This may seem a little odd coming from me, but one of the real strengths of RPGs to my mind is that the GM can verbally describe a location to four people around a table and each of them will paint the location in their own minds with their own pictures with a dollop of emotional fuzz around the edges which will make the scene right for them. If the GM hands out a full colour picture of the scene, then the players are limited to that image.
For me the best Adventures (e.g. the LBBs) are the ones which have very spare line drawings (and not many of them) and (by today's standards) crude maps. Somehow to me they seem to conjure up more than a high resolution 3d model in glorious detail.
I think there is room for detailed colour pictures in illustrating adventures but these should be carefully selected and should be few and far between. Maybe just the cover and at a pinch, one or two illustrations of items in which there can be only a little imaginative variance of what the players may imagine that scene to look like.
I really wish I could draw (or rather had the patience and drive to practice)because I'd be a lot happier producing line drawings than 3d art.
Ravs
Hemdian
June 4th, 2009, 02:12 AM
Did anyone save the pictures that went with this thread? I'd really like a set but they seem to be gone. :(
ravells
June 4th, 2009, 08:11 AM
Hi Hemdian....I restructured the folders on my photobucket account and now all the links are broken :(. If I have time this weekend, I'll edit and put in the new links.
Hadn't realised that people were still reading this thread!
Hadn't realised that people were still reading this thread!
Mithras
June 4th, 2009, 06:55 PM
Well I missed them all the first time round, I'd really like to see the hard work!
ravells
June 5th, 2009, 06:38 PM
I've put the pictures back up but there is no relation between them and the posts (sorry - it was too much thinking for this time of night). They are all there but you'll have to work out which pictures go with which post.
:: Edit :: Now I'm into mapping my 3d modelling days are pretty much over, but I think Andrew Boulton would be a perfect choice to do a starport project from Class E to A and do it much better than I ever could do. Perhaps if we pester him enough??
:: Edit :: Now I'm into mapping my 3d modelling days are pretty much over, but I think Andrew Boulton would be a perfect choice to do a starport project from Class E to A and do it much better than I ever could do. Perhaps if we pester him enough??
Andrew Boulton
June 6th, 2009, 11:01 AM
<hides under bed>
ravells
June 9th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Yeah, it's a huge job :)
Hal
June 9th, 2009, 07:43 PM
<hides under bed>
<removes bed as a cover and sprays Andrew a neon Purple color>
Nothing like royalty around eh?
*snickering*
Either that, or if you truly want peace and quiet, just start singing
I love you You love me
we're a happy family
with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
won't you say you love me too
I dare say, someone will put you out of their misery soon enough thinking you're that purple dino something or another ;)
<removes bed as a cover and sprays Andrew a neon Purple color>
Nothing like royalty around eh?
*snickering*
Either that, or if you truly want peace and quiet, just start singing
I love you You love me
we're a happy family
with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
won't you say you love me too
I dare say, someone will put you out of their misery soon enough thinking you're that purple dino something or another ;)
Andrew Boulton
June 10th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Hey! You can't treat me like this - I'm a Mod!
And I'm purple.
And these paint fumes are...
<thud>
And I'm purple.
And these paint fumes are...
<thud>
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét