Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Haggerty <Paul_Haggerty@*****.EDU>
Subject: Problem with Drone Statistics.
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 08:54:25 -0500
I'm new to playing a rigger, so I need some help explaining something from
the Rigger Black Book.

Specifically: Drones.

My character wants to run several drones (so that he can participate without
leaving the vehicle and getting scragged). Do the costs for armor, autopilot,
sensors, etc. get reduced when outfitting drones?

Here's an example:

Autopilot: Level 4 costs 25K per original body
Sensors: Advanced (3) costs 45K

For the Windjina, this leaves 5K for everything else, including a +4 Body
increase if we assume an 'original' body of 1.

Here's another example.

The Doberman costs 10K, but also has 45K worth of advanced sensors.

Hell, even the base level Crawler has 5K worth of standard sensors, yet only
costs a little over 1K.

Can anyone shed some light on this. I remember a group splintered off 2 or 3
years ago to develop a more rational and logical vehicle construction system,
but I never heard if anything came out of it.




--
Paul Haggerty
Programmer/Analyst - Planetary Geology Group
Brown University

Email: Paul_Haggerty@*****.edu
PGP Public Key available via:
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/~haggerty/haggerty.html
Message no. 2
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics.
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:27:45 GMT
Paul Haggerty writes

> I'm new to playing a rigger, so I need some help explaining something from
> the Rigger Black Book.
>
> Specifically: Drones.
>
> My character wants to run several drones (so that he can participate without
> leaving the vehicle and getting scragged).
common request, and as long as you are carfull about tight terrain no
problem, just don't bother spending an action 'controlling drone' and
laugh at the crash test when twice you VCR level gets dropped off the
target number. [do however beware tight terrain and damaged drones,
these modifiers can overload]

> Do the costs for
> armor,
not as far as i know, its cheap anyway, remember the costs are for
points of fisrt ed armour, thats 3 in 2nded

> autopilot,
not as far as i know

> sensors,
since whan were FASA logical ???

> etc. get reduced when outfitting drones?
>
> Paul Haggerty
Mark
Message no. 3
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics.
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:45:53 +0100
> I'm new to playing a rigger, so I need some help explaining something from
> the Rigger Black Book.

Who doesnt :) Welcome to the club.

> Specifically: Drones.
>
> My character wants to run several drones (so that he can participate without
> leaving the vehicle and getting scragged). Do the costs for armor, autopilot,
> sensors, etc. get reduced when outfitting drones?

Actually no, at least not for the characters (consumers).

> Here's an example:
[MUNCH]
> Can anyone shed some light on this. I remember a group splintered off 2 or 3
> years ago to develop a more rational and logical vehicle construction system,
> but I never heard if anything came out of it.

Well, the answer is simple. Big companies say like VW build their own parts/
buy them in mega-bulk for below rock-bottom prices. This means that they can
afford to sell you a package that costs less that the summ of its parts.
Kinda like Computer-Discount stores do today.

Another thing is that the part in question is probably custom made to
fit the vehicle its stuck in. This means that it lacks some of the
capabilities all-purpose replacement parts have (capabilities that are
useless when built in this vehicle). This allows for even lower prices.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."
Message no. 4
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics.
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 01:26:37 +0100
Paul Haggerty wrote:
[he re-calculated the costs for drones and came to no logical solution why
drones are so cheap with so much sensors...]
Hm, maybe we can call the whole stuff "mass production"?

Sascha
Message no. 5
From: Paul Haggerty <Paul_Haggerty@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:58:45 -0500
Thanks for the responses to my question. However, basically the only answer
has been mass production. Sorry, this simply won't fly. How can you have
a vehicle that costs 1/5 of the price of 1 of its components. Mass
production may
lower the prices, but I can't believe it could do that much. It's like
buying a 30,000 dollar car, deciding that the engine won't cut it, and then
being told that it will
cost you another 150,000 dollars to get a new engine. The difference in
price is
just too much.

So, I guess the answer is: It doesn't make any sense. That's just the way
it is.

Thanks anyway. Maybe the RBB II will shed some light on the problem.


--
Paul Haggerty
Programmer/Analyst - Planetary Geology Group
Brown University

Email: Paul_Haggerty@*****.edu
PGP Public Key available via:
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/~haggerty/haggerty.html
Message no. 6
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:01:46 -0700
>Paul:
>So, I guess the answer is: It doesn't make any sense. That's
>just the way it is.

>Thanks anyway. Maybe the RBB II will shed some light on
>the problem.

Don't hold your breath RBB II isn't due out till end of next year.

Thanks
Gary C.
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 12:44:57 +0100
> From: Paul Haggerty <Paul_Haggerty@*****.EDU>

> So, I guess the answer is: It doesn't make any sense. That's just the way
> it is.

Vehicle stats in SR on the whole make little sense, if you ask me. One of
the best examples is fuel consumption: 75 km per liter?! I used to have a
50cc bike that did about 25 km/l, and that is a _lot_ less than most
modern cars and motorcycles; you're not telling me that in 2055 cars have
about one-fifth the fuel consumption they have now...

> Thanks anyway. Maybe the RBB II will shed some light on the problem.

Don't count on it...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Could it be that it's only superficiality?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 08:33:25 +0930
Gurth wrote:
> Vehicle stats in SR on the whole make little sense, if you ask me. One of
> the best examples is fuel consumption: 75 km per liter?! I used to have a
> 50cc bike that did about 25 km/l, and that is a _lot_ less than most
> modern cars and motorcycles; you're not telling me that in 2055 cars have
> about one-fifth the fuel consumption they have now...

Hmm... now, I get on average about 12 km/L in my car. Now, what was the
fuel consumption like in a car 40 years ago?

Given another 60 years worth of engine design, and more efficient fuels,
that would be feasible.

And who says it's petroluem? A hydrogen-fueled car today can get something
like 30 km/L, I think (I saw a review in a "Popular Mechanics" mag my
brother had). Of course, a litre of hydrogen is a bit more voluminous than
a liter of petrol.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 12:36:17 +0100
> From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.ntu.edu.au>

> Hmm... now, I get on average about 12 km/L in my car. Now, what was the
> fuel consumption like in a car 40 years ago?

Depends on which car you look at; my father's 1950 Oldsmobile does maybe 5
km/l, but European cars of the same era have better fuel consumption
rates (and no V8 engine :)

> Given another 60 years worth of engine design, and more efficient fuels,
> that would be feasible.

Maybe it would but I'm still not convinced. It just looks strange to me,
50 km per liter and even better...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Could it be that it's only superficiality?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 09:22:17 -0400
On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
> Gurth wrote:
> > Vehicle stats in SR on the whole make little sense, if you ask me. One of
> > the best examples is fuel consumption: 75 km per liter?! I used to have a
> > 50cc bike that did about 25 km/l, and that is a _lot_ less than most
> > modern cars and motorcycles; you're not telling me that in 2055 cars have
> > about one-fifth the fuel consumption they have now...
> Hmm... now, I get on average about 12 km/L in my car. Now, what was the
> fuel consumption like in a car 40 years ago?
> Given another 60 years worth of engine design, and more efficient fuels,
> that would be feasible.
> And who says it's petroluem? A hydrogen-fueled car today can get something
> like 30 km/L, I think (I saw a review in a "Popular Mechanics" mag my
> brother had). Of course, a litre of hydrogen is a bit more voluminous than
> a liter of petrol.
See _Shadowplay_: The main character in there, (the budding shaman)
makes a getaway in a 1996 (? I don't remember exactly) Corvette. Anyway,
he looks at the speedo at one point, and wonders if it is boasting, as he
doesn't beleive that a car could even get up to about 2/3 of the top end
of the meter. Then he comments, to himself, that this was "just before"
fuel-efficiency and emmisions-control laws came into being. This is
probably FASA's explanation....

Remeber, one of the ways to decrease emmisions is to increase the amount
of fuel completely burnt; ie fuel economy. Furthermore, most vehicle
speeds have gone way down. Compare the top speeds of most of the
vehicles to those of today. (Multiply by 1.2 to kph, multiply by .6 to
get mph. Even a Blitzen tops out at 150 or so, and that has claim to
being the fastest land vehicle in the game.)
Message no. 11
From: Charles McKenzie <kilroy@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:59:21 -0500
On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Gurth wrote:

> > From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.ntu.edu.au>
>
> > Hmm... now, I get on average about 12 km/L in my car. Now, what was the
> > fuel consumption like in a car 40 years ago?
> > Given another 60 years worth of engine design, and more efficient fuels,
> > that would be feasible.
>
> Maybe it would but I'm still not convinced. It just looks strange to me,
> 50 km per liter and even better...

Well, looking at the quotes from Shadowplay and the speeds in the Rigger's
Black Book, 205x vehicles are a LOT slower than RL ones. (The
cars and bikes at least...) Could this be the reason for the
improved mileage?
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s+: a19 C++>$(++++) US(L+++) L E---->+++ W++ N++ o? K-? w+
!O M-- V? PS+ PE(-) Y+ PGP- t 5 X R++(+++) !tv b++ DI+++ D++ G e*
h++ !r--- !z+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: "Gary L. Kelley" <gkelley@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 18:01:03 -0500
>> From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.ntu.edu.au>
>
>> Hmm... now, I get on average about 12 km/L in my car. Now, what was the
>> fuel consumption like in a car 40 years ago?
>
>Depends on which car you look at; my father's 1950 Oldsmobile does maybe 5
>km/l, but European cars of the same era have better fuel consumption
>rates (and no V8 engine :)
>
>> Given another 60 years worth of engine design, and more efficient fuels,
>> that would be feasible.
>
>Maybe it would but I'm still not convinced. It just looks strange to me,
>50 km per liter and even better...
>
>--
>Gurth
All I can say to this is that with only minor tinkering you can get a car to
get between 55-60 mpg (miles/gallon). Take a brand new car (around 20-30mpg
on highway) add SPLIT FIREtm spark plugs (+ 5-10% mpg) add a super chip
designed to get better gas milage (don`t know the company +20-30% (or maybe
that was 20-30 mpg I don`t remember)) any way thats todays cars so imagigne
what happens if you get a new type of fuel (acholhal or petrochem)
KRK
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Problem with Drone Statistics
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:49:21 +0100
> From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>

> (Multiply by 1.2 to kph, multiply by .6 to
> get mph. Even a Blitzen tops out at 150 or so, and that has claim to
> being the fastest land vehicle in the game.)

I'll do without the mph thankyouverymuch :) A Blitzen (or Blitz, right
Stefan? :) does about 340 (which is still ~210mph, not 150) which is
rather around the speeds 500cc racing bikes do today. I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Could it be that it's only superficiality?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Problem with Drone Statistics, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!