Re: [FT] DDs and DHs inspired by WW2 types

Sounds interesting...But FT/MT/ect. ect. doesn't take into account the
shape of
a ship.  Hence the "generic" maneuver system.

Hmmm...there's a thought:

An optional hull/maneuver system.

Have the player choose the general shape of the hull.
Choice A:  Generic.  The current system without changes.  Basicly any
hull that
doesn't fall into the other types.
Choice B:  Long and pointy.  Basicly any hull that is 2 or more times
longer
than it is wide.  Assuming that the mass of the ship is more or less
evenly
distributed throughtout the hull.  This puts a good deal of the ship's
mass far
from it's center.  Thus it will need more thrusters per maneuver point. 
Big
advantage:  Can have some really great broadsides/fighter launch
bays...Roll
maneuvers would be easier for this type than other types.  (all of it's
mass is
very close to the long axis.)
Choice C:  Round.  Basicly any design that is compact/bulky.  All of the
ship's
mass will be close to it's center of mass.  This would allow the ship to
have
slightly less thrusters per maneuver point compaired to Choice B above. 
All
maneuvers would cost the same.
Choice D: ???  any ideas?

Hull choice shouldn't affect hull cost per mass.  (Not sure about this
one.)

Regardless of the shape of the ship, anyone should be able to add more
thrusters
to make the ship more maneuverable.  Thus a Choice B design could turn
as easily
as a Choice C, but it would have to give up more space for the
thrusters...

Any ideas anyone?

Donald Hosford

"Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:

<Snippage!>

> For a given amount of thrust, the long, pointy vessel will not spin as
> quickly about its center of mass as a more compact vessel.  While the
long
> vessel's thrusters would be working with a longer moment-arm (I'm
assuming
> that's what you meant when refering to "leverage"), the angular
momentum
> that it would have to overcome to get the ship spinning should be
greater as
> well.  Furthermore, the vesse's structural members would have to have
the
> additional strength to handle the spinning as well.
>
> The way I see it, the globe ships would be better for maneuvering, but
the
> additional structural support they would need since so much mass would
be
> off-center from the thrust-line of the engines would make them a
little less
> efficient for straight-line acceleration.  A lightly built pointy
vessel
> would be more efficient (in terms of mass needed for structural
support) to
> handle straith-line acceleration, but would be less maneuverable due
to
> structural weakness for forces not in the "keel's" direction.  Of
course,
> you could build a more heavily built pointy one, but that would then
no
> longer have the advantages of the pointy design (lightly built but
still
> able to handle high acceleration) and you'd really end up with the
worst of
> both worlds.
>
> It has been a loooooong time since I had my Dynamics of Rigid Bodies
and
> Deformables classes, but the above sounds right.
>
> > On the other hand, I'm no great hand at physics, so it could be that
I've
> > simply got a bad case of cranio-rectal inversion here, too...
> > --
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >  The Stilt Man		  stiltman@teleport.com
> >    http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
> >    < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and    >
> >    < surrender your money.	Antitrust law is irrelevant.	    >
> >    < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
> >    < technological distinctiveness to our own.  Your software   >
> >    < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile.	    >
> >