Re: FT3, details of needed changes

johnjmedway wrote:
> And from the physics I know, economy of scale should make the larger
> ships _faster_ since they can use more efficient drives. This dread-
> naughts can only have a 2 thrust while escourts can have 6 is total
> bullshit.

Maybe its just me, but I'm a hesitant fellow to make `how fast it can
go' cost determined by the `mass' of vehicle its mounted on, for this
and a handfull of other reasons.  How much the /drive/ masses is
related, and that much mass will cost different amount for larger ships,
but adding in some kind of sliding scale starts getting just a bit too
points niggly for me.

I might build a 6 Thrust dreadnaught, but it should be points-intensive,
I think.

> I would concede that that same economy of scale would not help out
> with thrusters to spin the ship around, as you would have limits of
> how much jerking around crew and equipment could stand. There'd be
> far far greater moment on the extreme ends of a dreadnaught flipping
> end over end to make a turn, than you would feel in a corvette turning
> the same number of degrees in the same time frame.

Considering that we're not exactly sure how long a FT Turn /is/, I'd
hesitate to start trying to calculate the moment of motion of a
dreadnaught's front as compared to an escort; it should probably be
under the `noise' level for getting shaken around.

-- 
Alexander Williams {zander@photobooks.com   ||"Quiet, Mal! Can't you
		    thantos@alf.dec.com}    || see I'm Creating!?"
============================================//	       -- Dr Blight

"Perhaps we should lower our mental trousers and compare the size of
 our consciousnesses?"
				       -- Jan Sands to Marvin Minsky
					  comp.ai.genetic
====================================================================
		<http://www.photobooks.com/~zander/>