From:	ArkAngel <DUNN@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Dealing with Engine ratios
Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 93 23:31:00 EST

>I just don't like this idea. First, in your chart, you suddenly have
>produced not five, but thirty different engines. This makes it all the
>more complicated to compute an "engine power v vehicle weight" ration.
>Also, any accessory that has characteristics based in any way on the size
>of the engine would suddently have to have thirty different accessories.
>See, in the end, it could get really complicated.
Actually, NO, I don't see-- it seems to me that if it's all set up via
mathematics then it really won't matter what sort of set up you have regarding
the actual engines... I mean for all practical purposes if you have 5 different
engines or 10000 different engines, you shouldn't have to have 5 or 10000
different accessories--these accessories should be based on a formula with a
variable for the engine rather than a specific characteristic... Such a formula
basis adds far more to the versatility and practicality of any system...
As far as Engine size goes, I'll concede the point--the engines were
way too big, however, I was sorta rattling off random figures at that point...

>MAX cruising Speed (MCS)
>MAX Redline Speed (MRS)
>Fuel Efficiency (Kilometers/liter or Kilometers/kilowatt) (FE)
Alright, these I like, and it seems to me that the best way to
calculate an engine size for chassis size (I still don't like the suggestion of
5 distinct sizes, but I'll go into that later) would be to set up a ratio
proportional to the max cruising speed... Perhaps a Logarthmic ratio would
actually be our best bet--any mathematics wizards out there? I know I'm not
one... From here, Fuel efficiency could be calculated as a factor of just how
much the cruising speed is exceeded by, and Redline speed could be calculated
as say, 2x the cruising speed... Or maybe some other ratio entirely (again, for
some reason, the idea of using exponential formulas comes to mind...)

>Also, this keeps engines relational between vehicle types. We can say
>that a 500kg/500NERP engine is the same whether it is mounted in a
>volkswagon or a helicopter, thus building another strength into the system.

Here, it seems to me that we're in agreement, however, I'd again say
that for this same reason we should allow the alternate body NERPs sizes (I'm
sorry, I like NERPS... at least 'til somebody comes up with something I like
better, I'll keep using it...)

Now, back to my earlier point about setting degrees of chassis sizes,
why not just make it say 100-250 NERP sizes (graded by 25s) are all mini.
Then, an engine size is just calculated by a max cruising speed and a NERP
size, and dropped in... OR perhaps the engine is the last thing put in... and
it's more difficult to make modifications (or 1-2 mph are lost from the MCS)
after the heavy mods are added...
While putting the engine in last might be a bad idea, it might make
sense from the consideration that the whole thing will be (or should be) laid
out on paper (computer) by the rigger before the thing is actually built, then
after the chassis and options are all popped on, the correct engine size for
the optimal max speed is dropped in... Additional weight dropped in later
(passengers and cargo) are already allowed for up to a certain maximum...
For instance, I decide I want a mini car, with 5 points of armor, and a
panther cannon mounted on the hood, with a MCS of 20000 MPH, the designer then
calculates the weight for the chassis, armor, and BIG gun, and then pops it
into a calculater with a ratio to the MCS to get the correct engine size and
consequently weight. Ultimately, I discover I need an engine approximately the
size of the Milky Way galaxy, but hey, that's OK....
From here, the suggestion that passenger and cargo weight are simply
alotted for in the given weight of the chassis is the suggestion that comes to
mind. (E.G. a 200 kg chassis actually only weighs 100 kg, allowing 100 kg for
passengers and cargo--admittedly a ludicrous example, but that's beside the
point...)
Well, that's my babbling for now... I'll let Hayden @#$%% me out for
suggesting such incomprehensible illogical ideas now ;-)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dunn@******.jcu.edu-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
First law of RPG adventure writing:"In any given scenario, there are 4
possible player actions, the three reasonable ones the GM expects, and the one
the players ultimately divise and use."
>>>>>[ArkAngel.Logout]>>>>>