Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:05:20 EST
Okay everybody, I finally posted my revised method for determining the amount
of space a vehicle takes up in terms of CF. Seeing as this is something FASA
decided to leave out from the R2 (probably going to Errata but it's going to
be a while in that department).

Let me know what you think. The addy is as follows ...

http://members.aol.com/hhhad2/vehstor.html

Thanks,
-Mike
Message no. 2
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:17:16 EST
In a message dated 11/24/1998 9:07:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

>
> Okay everybody, I finally posted my revised method for determining the
> amount
> of space a vehicle takes up in terms of CF. Seeing as this is something
> FASA
> decided to leave out from the R2 (probably going to Errata but it's going
to
> be a while in that department).

Actually, according to my sources it was NEVER fully considered at all.

> Let me know what you think. The addy is as follows ...
> http://members.aol.com/hhhad2/vehstor.html


Ah yes, more to the fray of pages... Alfredo, you can thwap us both now for
these pages are getting drastically out of hand AND out of order...

-K
Message no. 3
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:20:55 -0600
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:05:20 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>Okay everybody, I finally posted my revised method for determining the
amount
>of space a vehicle takes up in terms of CF. Seeing as this is something
FASA
>decided to leave out from the R2 (probably going to Errata but it's
going to
>be a while in that department).
>
>Let me know what you think. The addy is as follows ...
>
>http://members.aol.com/hhhad2/vehstor.html

Okay, here're your formulas:
Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 2

According to this, an anthroform takes up (2) x (4) x 2 CF = 16 CF!!!
I'm ~ 6'5" and I'd fit comfily into an rectangle 2m x .6m x .3 m = .36
cubic meters. Now, considering that R2 defines a CF as .125 cubic
meters, I'd take up under 3 CF. Now, unless anthroforms are around 3.5
meters (assuming human proportions), your estimate is a bit much (IMO).
(And don't write it off as room to protect it from bumping around ...
that space is relatively small and even a 3 meter anthroform is a bit
much since the only UAV described as being as big as trolls is a body 3
when the anthroform has a body of 2.).

Storage Requirment (Body 0) = (Total CF) x 0.5

uhm ... All Body 0 drones have 0 Total CF, don't they? So they all take
up 0 CF of space according to the above ...

Storage Requirement (when uninflated) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 0.5

You shouldn't be multipling the Total CF by body ... do bucket seats take
up more volume because they're installed in an airplane instead of a car?

Here's what I've been thinking of:
0.5+(Body)+(Total Cf)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF
This is assuming that the vehicle is broken
down/collapsed/disassembled/etc, if possible. GM's discretion would have
to be used for vehicles that can collapse but aren't.

For example, I'd say the formula for storing an uninflated blimp would
be:
0.5+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF

The reason for the (2*non-concealed armor) is that concealed takes away
volume (CF) because it inside the vehicle but other armor doesn't because
it is "outside" and so even though the armor has volume, it is not
included in the Total CF. Similar accomodations would have to be made
for such things as aircraft drop tanks, missles, Smart Armor Systems
(SAS), and possibly cranes, winches, and mechanical arms).

Perhaps removing the base 0.5 CF could be a design option.

Now, let's test that with the aformentioned Anthroform:
0.5+(2)+(4)+(2*0) CF = 6.5 CF

better but still a bit much, IMO. perhaps the formula should be:
(1+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor))/2 CF?
(which would result in 3.5 CF for the Anthroform)

Well, I hope that helps/is constructive. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 4
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:06:30 EST
In a message dated 11/25/98 2:30:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Okay, here're your formulas:
> Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 2

After reading this thing Alfredo, I went ahead and redid the formula for doing
just this, and it looks better this time around also. It may be slighlty
better, it may not be.

The new formula are as follows :
Drone Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^2 + (Total CF)
Vehicle Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^3 + (Total CF)

For drones with a Body of 0, they take up a total of 0.2 CF, plus if they have
any storage space at all also.

There are also special cases when a drone or vehicle can also be uninflated or
collapsed into a much smaller, economical shape. And when doing this, treat
the vehicle as if having a Body value one (1) less than it already is.

> According to this, an anthroform takes up (2) x (4) x 2 CF = 16 CF!!!
> I'm ~ 6'5" and I'd fit comfily into an rectangle 2m x .6m x .3 m = .36
> cubic meters. Now, considering that R2 defines a CF as .125 cubic
> meters, I'd take up under 3 CF.

According to the new formula, a anthroform (Body2 , with 1 CF of storage) will
take up a total of 5 CF of space this time around.

> Now, unless anthroforms are around 3.5
> meters (assuming human proportions), your estimate is a bit much (IMO).
> (And don't write it off as room to protect it from bumping around ...
> that space is relatively small and even a 3 meter anthroform is a bit
> much since the only UAV described as being as big as trolls is a body 3
> when the anthroform has a body of 2.).
>
> Storage Requirment (Body 0) = (Total CF) x 0.5
>
> uhm ... All Body 0 drones have 0 Total CF, don't they? So they all take
> up 0 CF of space according to the above ...

Umm, the formula for drones with a Body of 0, is based off of the normal
formula, except that the body attribute is -NOT- taken into effect, instead
being counted as a flat 0.2 CF requirement. Considering the Bumblebee drones
from RA:S, they could take up less space, so hash this part out with your gm.

> Storage Requirement (when uninflated) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 0.5
>
> You shouldn't be multipling the Total CF by body ... do bucket seats take
> up more volume because they're installed in an airplane instead of a car?

The Total CF of the vehicle means the total number of CF additional CF that
was purchased, and adding in all of the stuff which does take up CF which was
already in the chassis to begin with (Sensors, Seating, and Fuel). On the
topic of Fuel, use the rules for expanding fuel capacity in the R2 design
section, which means that electrical batteries do not take up much space at
all.

> Here's what I've been thinking of:
> 0.5+(Body)+(Total Cf)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF
> This is assuming that the vehicle is broken
> down/collapsed/disassembled/etc, if possible. GM's discretion would have
> to be used for vehicles that can collapse but aren't.

Why pay again for the CF cost of Concealed Armor. When you go to purchase
additional CF Storage space in the vehicle, you have just purchased all of the
CF space that you will need on the vehicle. Using the above formula you just
double charged yourself for the space taken up by the Concealed Armor.

> For example, I'd say the formula for storing an uninflated blimp would
> be:
> 0.5+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF
>
> The reason for the (2*non-concealed armor) is that concealed takes away
> volume (CF) because it inside the vehicle but other armor doesn't because
> it is "outside" and so even though the armor has volume, it is not
> included in the Total CF. Similar accomodations would have to be made
> for such things as aircraft drop tanks, missles, Smart Armor Systems
> (SAS), and possibly cranes, winches, and mechanical arms).
>
> Perhaps removing the base 0.5 CF could be a design option.
>
> Now, let's test that with the aformentioned Anthroform:
> 0.5+(2)+(4)+(2*0) CF = 6.5 CF
>
> better but still a bit much, IMO. perhaps the formula should be:
> (1+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor))/2 CF?
> (which would result in 3.5 CF for the Anthroform)
>
> Well, I hope that helps/is constructive. :)
>
It was constructive, as it lead to me going through about 10 different formula
until I came up with something that sounded good.

Again, let me know what you think.

-Mike
Message no. 5
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:11:11 -0600
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:06:30 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 11/25/98 2:30:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> Okay, here're your formulas:
>> Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 2

>After reading this thing Alfredo, I went ahead and redid the formula for
doing
>just this, and it looks better this time around also. It may be
slighlty
>better, it may not be.
>
>The new formula are as follows :
> Drone Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^2 + (Total CF)
> Vehicle Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^3 + (Total CF)

Why a seperate formula for vehicle and drones? The only difference
between drones

Let's compare the results with some vehicles (I used as many electric
powerplants as possible in order to disregard fuel as much as possible.
:):
Vehicle Engine Body CF Storage*
Scooter Electric 2 6 14/10
Sedan Electric 3 30 57/39
L Crawl Electric 2 2 10/6
Airliner Jet 9 612 1341/693
Jet Fighter Jet 7 164 507/213
FW UAV L Jet 3 5.4 32.4/14.4
Tbird Jet 6 174 390/210
VT UAV L Jet 3 4.4 21.4/13.4
Zeppelin Electric 8 60 572/124
Mini-blimp Electric 2 1 9/5
Anthroform ? 2 4 12/8
*Format Note: The first number is using the "Vehicle" formula, the second
is using the "drone" formula.

Hmmm ... Okay, IMO, the "drone" formula is a pretty good representation
of how much space a vehicle takes up ... except perhaps for the airliner.
I would reccomend use the "drone" formula for vehicles except for
fixed-wing aircraft not equiped with folding or swept wingsand rotorcraft
without folding rotors (where the rotors don't fold like folding wings
but rather lay over each other.) and/or folding wings as appropriate.

>For drones with a Body of 0, they take up a total of 0.2 CF, plus if
they have
>any storage space at all also.

This souns good to me.

>There are also special cases when a drone or vehicle can also be
uninflated or
>collapsed into a much smaller, economical shape. And when doing this,
treat
>the vehicle as if having a Body value one (1) less than it already is.

That would make the zepplin & mini-blimp 403/109 CF and 2/2 CF (see
format note above), respectively.

>> According to this, an anthroform takes up (2) x (4) x 2 CF = 16 CF!!!
>> I'm ~ 6'5" and I'd fit comfily into an rectangle 2m x .6m x .3 m =
.36
>> cubic meters. Now, considering that R2 defines a CF as .125 cubic
>> meters, I'd take up under 3 CF.

>According to the new formula, a anthroform (Body2 , with 1 CF of
storage) will
>take up a total of 5 CF of space this time around.

Nope. The mechanical limbs are 2 CF each (ie, 4 CF for the pair) and
everything else is is 0 CF so it's:
(Body)^2 + (Total CF)
(2)^2+(4) = 8 CF

<SNIP>
>>> Storage Requirement (when uninflated) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 0.5

>> You shouldn't be multipling the Total CF by body ... do bucket seats
take
>> up more volume because they're installed in an airplane instead of a
car?

>The Total CF of the vehicle means the total number of CF additional CF
that
>was purchased, and adding in all of the stuff which does take up CF
which was
>already in the chassis to begin with (Sensors, Seating, and Fuel). On
the
>topic of Fuel, use the rules for expanding fuel capacity in the R2
design
>section, which means that electrical batteries do not take up much space
at
>all.

Exactly. In the original formula, installing one bucket seat assuming
that you have to and are able to purchase additional 6 CF inorder to fit
the bucket seat.) in a scooter would increase the CF required to store
the scooter by 12 CF and installing the same bucket seat in an airliner
would increase the CF required by 54 CF!

>> Here's what I've been thinking of:
>> 0.5+(Body)+(Total Cf)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF
>> This is assuming that the vehicle is broken
>> down/collapsed/disassembled/etc, if possible. GM's discretion would
have
>> to be used for vehicles that can collapse but aren't.

>Why pay again for the CF cost of Concealed Armor. When you go to
purchase
>additional CF Storage space in the vehicle, you have just purchased all
of the
>CF space that you will need on the vehicle. Using the above formula you
just
>double charged yourself for the space taken up by the Concealed Armor.

Nope. The formula say *NON*-concealed armor)

>> For example, I'd say the formula for storing an uninflated blimp
would
>> be:
>> 0.5+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF

>> The reason for the (2*non-concealed armor) is that concealed takes
away
>> volume (CF) because it inside the vehicle but other armor doesn't
because
>> it is "outside" and so even though the armor has volume, it is not
>> included in the Total CF. Similar accomodations would have to be
made
>> for such things as aircraft drop tanks, missles, Smart Armor Systems
>> (SAS), and possibly cranes, winches, and mechanical arms).
>>
>> Perhaps removing the base 0.5 CF could be a design option.

This, btw, was tossed in because of the Bumblebee drone in RA:S (though,
I still don't have that book.)

>> Now, let's test that with the aformentioned Anthroform:
>> 0.5+(2)+(4)+(2*0) CF = 6.5 CF
>>
>> better but still a bit much, IMO. perhaps the formula should be:
>> (1+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor))/2 CF?
>> (which would result in 3.5 CF for the Anthroform)
>>
>> Well, I hope that helps/is constructive. :)

>It was constructive, as it lead to me going through about 10 different
formula
>until I came up with something that sounded good.

I'm glad and your revision does sound much better, IMO. :)

>Again, let me know what you think.

Done. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 6
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:15:39 EST
In a message dated 11/26/98 3:18:48 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:06:30 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
> >In a message dated 11/25/98 2:30:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> >dghost@****.COM writes:
> >> Okay, here're your formulas:
> >> Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 2
>
> >After reading this thing Alfredo, I went ahead and redid the formula for
> doing
> >just this, and it looks better this time around also. It may be
> slighlty
> >better, it may not be.
> >
> >The new formula are as follows :
> > Drone Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^2 + (Total CF)
> > Vehicle Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^3 + (Total CF)
>
> Why a seperate formula for vehicle and drones? The only difference
> between drones

The reason I chose to have different formula is because the design of a drone
and a manned vehicle are different. A manned vehicle has space added into it
to take into account people and the things that they do while within a vehicle
(like move around and such), whereas in a drone you don't need to worry about
some of those things.

> Let's compare the results with some vehicles (I used as many electric
> powerplants as possible in order to disregard fuel as much as possible.
> :):

I was intending for the drone formula to work on drones, though I am thinking
of expanding it to include any vehicle which does not have an enclosure for
people to transported in (like bikes and some other types of vehicles.

> Vehicle Engine Body CF Storage*
> Scooter Electric 2 6 14/10
> Sedan Electric 3 30 57/39
> L Crawl Electric 2 2 10/6
> Airliner Jet 9 612 1341/693
> Jet Fighter Jet 7 164 507/213
> FW UAV L Jet 3 5.4 32.4/14.4
> Tbird Jet 6 174 390/210
> VT UAV L Jet 3 4.4 21.4/13.4
> Zeppelin Electric 8 60 572/124
> Mini-blimp Electric 2 1 9/5
> Anthroform ? 2 4 12/8
> *Format Note: The first number is using the "Vehicle" formula, the second
> is using the "drone" formula.
>
> Hmmm ... Okay, IMO, the "drone" formula is a pretty good representation
> of how much space a vehicle takes up ... except perhaps for the airliner.
> I would reccomend use the "drone" formula for vehicles except for
> fixed-wing aircraft not equiped with folding or swept wingsand rotorcraft
> without folding rotors (where the rotors don't fold like folding wings
> but rather lay over each other.) and/or folding wings as appropriate.

I agree, though perhaps it could be said that in a vehicle with the folded /
swept / retracted wings that it to is considered to have a Body of 1 less to
account for the reduction in overall size.

> >For drones with a Body of 0, they take up a total of 0.2 CF, plus if
> they have
> >any storage space at all also.
>
> This souns good to me.

Tanks.

> >There are also special cases when a drone or vehicle can also be
> uninflated or
> >collapsed into a much smaller, economical shape. And when doing this,
> treat
> >the vehicle as if having a Body value one (1) less than it already is.
>
> That would make the zepplin & mini-blimp 403/109 CF and 2/2 CF (see
> format note above), respectively.

True, a zeppelin could be collapsed, but it would also take a frag of a long
time to put back together again too. And on the topic of the mini-blimp, the
blimp would take up 5 CF (2^2 + 1)when inflated, and 2 CF (1^2 + 1) when not
inflated.

> >> According to this, an anthroform takes up (2) x (4) x 2 CF = 16 CF!!!
> >> I'm ~ 6'5" and I'd fit comfily into an rectangle 2m x .6m x .3 m =
> .36
> >> cubic meters. Now, considering that R2 defines a CF as .125 cubic
> >> meters, I'd take up under 3 CF.
>
> >According to the new formula, a anthroform (Body2 , with 1 CF of
> storage) will
> >take up a total of 5 CF of space this time around.
>
> Nope. The mechanical limbs are 2 CF each (ie, 4 CF for the pair) and
> everything else is is 0 CF so it's:
> (Body)^2 + (Total CF)
> (2)^2+(4) = 8 CF

True, I forgot about them. Thanks for correcting me. But then again,
considering that an anthroform is different from a walker drone in that it has
mechanical limbs already does mean that it does take up additional space.

> <SNIP>
> >>> Storage Requirement (when uninflated) = (Body) x (Total CF) x 0.5
>
> >> You shouldn't be multipling the Total CF by body ... do bucket seats
> take
> >> up more volume because they're installed in an airplane instead of a
> car?
>
> >The Total CF of the vehicle means the total number of CF additional CF
> that
> >was purchased, and adding in all of the stuff which does take up CF
> which was
> >already in the chassis to begin with (Sensors, Seating, and Fuel). On
> the
> >topic of Fuel, use the rules for expanding fuel capacity in the R2
> design
> >section, which means that electrical batteries do not take up much space
> at
> >all.
>
> Exactly. In the original formula, installing one bucket seat assuming
> that you have to and are able to purchase additional 6 CF inorder to fit
> the bucket seat.) in a scooter would increase the CF required to store
> the scooter by 12 CF and installing the same bucket seat in an airliner
> would increase the CF required by 54 CF!

Going to something from above, I am thinking of making bikes be considered
drones for the purposes of their storage requirement.

> >> Here's what I've been thinking of:
> >> 0.5+(Body)+(Total Cf)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF
> >> This is assuming that the vehicle is broken
> >> down/collapsed/disassembled/etc, if possible. GM's discretion would
> have
> >> to be used for vehicles that can collapse but aren't.
>
> >Why pay again for the CF cost of Concealed Armor. When you go to
> purchase
> >additional CF Storage space in the vehicle, you have just purchased all
> of the
> >CF space that you will need on the vehicle. Using the above formula you
> just
> >double charged yourself for the space taken up by the Concealed Armor.
>
> Nope. The formula say *NON*-concealed armor)

Okay, mea culpa, but getting back, even standard armor does not take CF space
up in a vehicle, as the armor is fitted within the vehicle itself, in the
areas which either have nothing in them, or the armor is designed to fit
within the confined spaces.

> >> For example, I'd say the formula for storing an uninflated blimp
> would
> >> be:
> >> 0.5+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor) CF
>
> >> The reason for the (2*non-concealed armor) is that concealed takes
> away
> >> volume (CF) because it inside the vehicle but other armor doesn't
> because
> >> it is "outside" and so even though the armor has volume, it is
not
> >> included in the Total CF. Similar accomodations would have to be
> made
> >> for such things as aircraft drop tanks, missles, Smart Armor Systems
> >> (SAS), and possibly cranes, winches, and mechanical arms).
> >>
> >> Perhaps removing the base 0.5 CF could be a design option.
>
> This, btw, was tossed in because of the Bumblebee drone in RA:S (though,
> I still don't have that book.)

Get the book if you can Alfredo, it is wonderful, detailing what happens if
you rely on technology too much. RA is the Titanic for the Sixth Age.

> >> Now, let's test that with the aformentioned Anthroform:
> >> 0.5+(2)+(4)+(2*0) CF = 6.5 CF
> >>
> >> better but still a bit much, IMO. perhaps the formula should be:
> >> (1+(Body * 10)+(Total CF)+(2*non-concealed armor))/2 CF?
> >> (which would result in 3.5 CF for the Anthroform)
> >>
> >> Well, I hope that helps/is constructive. :)
>
> >It was constructive, as it lead to me going through about 10 different
> formula
> >until I came up with something that sounded good.
>
> I'm glad and your revision does sound much better, IMO. :)

Thanks,

> >Again, let me know what you think.
>
> Done. :)

-Mike
Message no. 7
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:24:06 EST
In a message dated 98-11-26 23:35:01 EST, you write:

> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:15:39 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
> >In a message dated 11/26/98 3:18:48 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> >dghost@****.COM writes:
> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:06:30 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
> writes:
> <SNIP>
> >> >The new formula are as follows :
> >> > Drone Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^2 + (Total CF)
> >> > Vehicle Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^3 + (Total CF)

<snip>

> A pretty tall (2m) human of medium build takes up less than 3 CF, yet
> bucket seats take up 6 CF, AND if you think about it, most of the extra
> space is waist up room. IMO, that accounts for the room that "you don't
> need to worry about" in a drone. In fact, think about gutting a car and
> turning it into a drone ... It doesn't suddenlty shrink, does yet? yet
> the volume available is the same. Now, if you want to toss in some room
> for people to move in/out of the vehicle while it is in storage, that's
> different ... but even then, change the power in the equation is a bit
> extreme.

Well, I think from the hankering we've been doing it looks like the formula
still needs some working on then. What if the current formula for all drones
was changed. For determining Body 1 and 2 drones, you use the above formula,
except that the Body is not squared to determine the amount of CF that it
takes up. When dealing with drones with a Body of 3 or higher, you would use
the formula as it stands currently. What do you think dghost?

<snipped even more>

> >True, a zeppelin could be collapsed, but it would also take a frag of a
> long
> >time to put back together again too.
>
> Well, if you want to stow it for a long period of time, you might want to
> defliate it ... but actually, I think that's more for blimps ...
> Zepplins, IIRC, have a rigid balloon thingy (technical term).


Rigid balloon thingy, what a wonderful choice of words there Alfredo. The
only reason I mentioned a Zeppelin could be uninflated is because you
originally first mentioned it. Hey, this gives me another idea, how about a
vehicle design option which allows for a vehicle with no Set-up / Breakdown
time to all of sudden have one? Let me know what you all think about it.

<snipped a whole lot more>

> >Get the book if you can Alfredo, it is wonderful, detailing what happens
> if
> >you rely on technology too much.
>
> I plan on it. I just need to wait until a friend of mine can give me a
> ride to Phoenix (I don't really want to take the bus there ...).
>
> >RA is the Titanic for the Sixth Age.
>
> I thought you were trying to convince me to buy it? ;P~
>
Yes, and I am.

-Mike</PRE></HTML>
Message no. 8
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:28:20 -0600
On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:24:06 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 98-11-26 23:35:01 EST, you write:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:15:39 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
writes:
>> >In a message dated 11/26/98 3:18:48 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>> >dghost@****.COM writes:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:06:30 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
writes:
>> <SNIP>
>> >> >The new formula are as follows :
>> >> > Drone Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^2 + (Total
CF)
>> >> > Vehicle Storage Requirement (Body 1+) = (Body)^3 + (Total
CF)

><snip>

>> A pretty tall (2m) human of medium build takes up less than 3 CF, yet
>> bucket seats take up 6 CF, AND if you think about it, most of the
extra
>> space is waist up room. IMO, that accounts for the room that "you
don't
>> need to worry about" in a drone. In fact, think about gutting a car
and
>> turning it into a drone ... It doesn't suddenlty shrink, does yet?
yet
>> the volume available is the same. Now, if you want to toss in some
room
>> for people to move in/out of the vehicle while it is in storage,
that's
>> different ... but even then, change the power in the equation is a bit
>> extreme.

>Well, I think from the hankering we've been doing it looks like the
formula
>still needs some working on then. What if the current formula for all
drones
>was changed. For determining Body 1 and 2 drones, you use the above
formula,
>except that the Body is not squared to determine the amount of CF that
it
>takes up. When dealing with drones with a Body of 3 or higher, you
would use
>the formula as it stands currently. What do you think dghost?

Actually, IMO, I think you should just use the "drone" formula for all
vehicles. A vehicle doesn't take up less space if you convert it into a
drone.

><snipped even more>
>> >True, a zeppelin could be collapsed, but it would also take a frag of
a long
>> >time to put back together again too.
>>
>> Well, if you want to stow it for a long period of time, you might want
to
>> defliate it ... but actually, I think that's more for blimps ...
>> Zepplins, IIRC, have a rigid balloon thingy (technical term).

>Rigid balloon thingy, what a wonderful choice of words there Alfredo.
The
>only reason I mentioned a Zeppelin could be uninflated is because you
>originally first mentioned it.

Yeah, I know.

>Hey, this gives me another idea, how about a
>vehicle design option which allows for a vehicle with no Set-up /
Breakdown
>time to all of sudden have one? Let me know what you all think about
it.

I like it. Except for the stats ... They need more meat to them. ;P~

<SNIP>

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 9
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:54:20 EST
In a message dated 98-11-27 22:36:34 EST, you write:

> >Well, I think from the hankering we've been doing it looks like the
> formula
> >still needs some working on then. What if the current formula for all
> drones
> >was changed. For determining Body 1 and 2 drones, you use the above
> formula,
> >except that the Body is not squared to determine the amount of CF that
> it
> >takes up. When dealing with drones with a Body of 3 or higher, you
> would use
> >the formula as it stands currently. What do you think dghost?
>
> Actually, IMO, I think you should just use the "drone" formula for all
> vehicles. A vehicle doesn't take up less space if you convert it into a
> drone.

The reason I had put up two different formula is that when you design a
vehicle to be manned you throw in a lot of other things that are not needed in
a unmanned one. A manned vehicle has to have enough space for the person and
room for any potential life support also. An example, take an F-16 fighter,
if the person were to be removed the plane could be up to 8 to 10 feet shorter
than it already is.

> ><snipped even more>
> >> >True, a zeppelin could be collapsed, but it would also take a frag of
> a long
> >> >time to put back together again too.
> >>
> >> Well, if you want to stow it for a long period of time, you might want
> to
> >> defliate it ... but actually, I think that's more for blimps ...
> >> Zepplins, IIRC, have a rigid balloon thingy (technical term).
>
> >Rigid balloon thingy, what a wonderful choice of words there Alfredo.
> The
> >only reason I mentioned a Zeppelin could be uninflated is because you
> >originally first mentioned it.
>
> Yeah, I know.
>
> >Hey, this gives me another idea, how about a
> >vehicle design option which allows for a vehicle with no Set-up /
> Breakdown
> >time to all of sudden have one? Let me know what you all think about
> it.
>
> I like it. Except for the stats ... They need more meat to them. ;P~
>
(fork and knife in hands) "Dibs on the power plant."

-Mike
Message no. 10
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 13:36:57 -0600
On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:54:20 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 98-11-27 22:36:34 EST, you write:
<SNIP>
>> Actually, IMO, I think you should just use the "drone" formula for all
>> vehicles. A vehicle doesn't take up less space if you convert it into
a
>> drone.

>The reason I had put up two different formula is that when you design a
>vehicle to be manned you throw in a lot of other things that are not
needed in
>a unmanned one. A manned vehicle has to have enough space for the
person and
>room for any potential life support also.

That is taken care of by the CF and load requirements for bucket seats
and life support.

>An example, take an F-16 fighter,
>if the person were to be removed the plane could be up to 8 to 10 feet
shorter
>than it already is.

It /COULD/ be 8 to 10 feet shorter, OR you could use that same space to
add more gear to your new F-16 drone. Either way, the difference is that
of Total CF, not what power to raise Body to (IMO).

<SNIP>
>> >Hey, this gives me another idea, how about a
>> >vehicle design option which allows for a vehicle with no Set-up /
Breakdown
>> >time to all of sudden have one? Let me know what you all think
about it.

>> I like it. Except for the stats ... They need more meat to them. ;P~

>(fork and knife in hands) "Dibs on the power plant."

LOL :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:12:10 +0100
According to Mike Bobroff, at 9:54 on 28 Nov 98, the word on
the street was...

> The reason I had put up two different formula is that when you design a
> vehicle to be manned you throw in a lot of other things that are not needed in
> a unmanned one. A manned vehicle has to have enough space for the person and
> room for any potential life support also. An example, take an F-16 fighter,
> if the person were to be removed the plane could be up to 8 to 10 feet shorter
> than it already is.

And as I said before, would you say the 6 CF a bucket seat takes up
accounts for those things?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stay in.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:23:50 EST
In a message dated 98-11-28 14:54:10 EST, you write:

> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:54:20 EST Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM> writes:
> >In a message dated 98-11-27 22:36:34 EST, you write:
> <SNIP>
> >> Actually, IMO, I think you should just use the "drone" formula
for all
> >> vehicles. A vehicle doesn't take up less space if you convert it into
> a
> >> drone.
>
> >The reason I had put up two different formula is that when you design a
> >vehicle to be manned you throw in a lot of other things that are not
> needed in
> >a unmanned one. A manned vehicle has to have enough space for the
> person and
> >room for any potential life support also.
>
> That is taken care of by the CF and load requirements for bucket seats
> and life support.

Ah, okay, I'm beginning to see some of what you are saying, I'll think it over
this evening.

<snip>

> >> I like it. Except for the stats ... They need more meat to them. ;P~
>
> >(fork and knife in hands) "Dibs on the power plant."
>
> LOL :)

(pointing finger at Alfredo) "Oh, I forgot, you only like having Fiats for
snacks." :)

-Mike</PRE></HTML>
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 12:24:16 +0100
According to Gurth, at 21:12 on 28 Nov 98, the word on
the street was...

> And as I said before, would you say the 6 CF a bucket seat takes up
> accounts for those things?

Let's try that sentence again... "Would you say the 6 CF a bucket seat
accounts for those things?" is a lot closer to what I was trying to say :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stay in.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 14
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:16:08 -0600
>> An example, take an F-16 fighter, if the person were to be
>> removed the plane could be up to 8 to 10 feet shorter than
>> it already is.
>
>And as I said before, would you say the 6 CF a bucket seat takes
>up accounts for those things?

Unless I just drastically misread RIGGER 2, that's *exactly* what the 6
CF a bucket seat takes up account for.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 15
From: Herc airwisp@******************.com
Subject: Vehicle Storage Requirements
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:24:29 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BFE6E8.EE9B2790
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Okay, last night while working on the Italian version of the front page of
HHH, I started working on how much space a vehicle takes up in terms of CF.

In Hoosier Hacker House go to the Rigger section, once there, in the navbar
is a link to "Vehicle Storage."

Let me know if this helps a bit.

It's a beginning, and it's a catchall, not perfect, but not too out of
whack, and I tried to keep it as simple as possible.

Ciao,
-Mike


------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BFE6E8.EE9B2790
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3018.900" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Okay, last night while working on the
Italian
version of the front page of<BR>HHH, I started working on how much space a
vehicle takes up in terms of CF.<BR><BR>In Hoosier Hacker House go to the
Rigger
section, once there, in the navbar<BR>is a link to "Vehicle
Storage."<BR><BR>Let
me know if this helps a bit.<BR><BR>It's a beginning, and it's a catchall, not

perfect, but not too out of<BR>whack, and I tried to keep it as simple as
possible.<BR><BR>Ciao,<BR>-Mike<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BFE6E8.EE9B2790--

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vehicle Storage Requirements, 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!