Re: Sinking GEV's

BTW, Oerjan, thanks for the welcome.

Let me point out one other thing.  I believe this discussion nicely 
highlights one of the reasons I believe armor and amphibious capability 
should both cost capacity.  Let me explain regarding amphibiousness:

As I've discussed with Oerjan a year or more ago, vehicle CLASS
represents 
size, while CAPACITY represents a nebulous combination of mass and
volume 
(not all components of the same capacity will WEIGH the same amount or
take 
up the same amount of SPACE, but will all use up a relatively similar 
combined amount of a vehicle's space and weight CAPACITY.

Amphibious vehicles, as stated, will essentially work under the same 
principle as a boat - they float if they displace more water mass than
their 
own mass.  Since class represents size, any two vehicles of the same
class 
will displace roughly the same amount of water.  What makes one
amphibious 
and the other not is their comparative weight.	The vehicle that weighs
less 
will float.  To represent this in design, you reduce the amount the
vehicle 
can weigh, or it's CAPACITY.  Thus, the CAPACITY cost for amphibious
should 
be class x (A), and represents the reduction in the amount of mass the 
vehicle can carry and still float.

BrCB

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis
is 
of no use."

				 - S. Freud

>From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: Sinking GEV's
>Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:37:38 -0700
>
>
>
>
>>Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>>
>>(Yes, hovercraft do displace some water - though it is their air
cushions
>>which do the displacing, not their hulls. This is usually visible on
pics
>>of hovercraft moving over water.)
>
>Remember you said this n a moment when I clarify my point.....
>
>
>>Brian Bilderback (welcome back, BTW!) wrote:
>>
>>>Another possible route you might take is this:
>>>HR In order to move across water GEV's must be designed with the
>>>Amphibious feature as for other land vehicles.
>>[...]
>>>In this case, don't think of the "amphibious" feature as being just a
>>>watertight hull and a couple of PTO proprllers, rather, it is a
design
>>>feature of the GEV which allows it's skirt & propellers to displace 
>>>enough
>>>water pressure to keep it from sinking.
>>
>>Um, well. Put it like this: if you make the hull of an M1A2 Abrams
>>completely watertight and put propellers on it, it'll still sink.
>
>Sorry if you took that comment literally.  Let me clarify.  To take a
land
>vehicle and make it amphibious, IRL, you have to make it displace
enough
>water to keep it afloat, and equip it with both land and water
propulsion.
>In the game, this is simulated by paying to make the vehicle
amphibious.
>Therefore:
>
>>IOW, if you want an amphibious GEV with heavy armour, you have to make
it
>>big enough to spread the weight of that armour over a large enough
surface
>>so the "ground pressure" of the vehicle is so low that the water can
>>support it.
>
>Agreed.  My suggestion is merely that since the way this is simulated
for
>ground vehicles in DSII is to pay for amphibious, it stands to reason
that
>tis is a viable way to simulate it in GEV's as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Re: vehicle design system: I and Beth have made some progress over the

>>past
>>year,
>
>Sidetracked or no, I'd like to see what you have.  I'll probably still 
>stick
>with my HR's, but I'm always willing to review and refine.
>
>BrCB
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>

_________________________________________________________________