| From: | R Andrew Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: VCC: Comments |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:09:17 CET |
>
> Hi Everybody,
> First of all I get the impression that some of you want to completely trash
> everything from the rule books on vehicles. I really don't think there is a
> need for new vehicle combat rules. In fact I think once the construction
rules
> are done, you should have a vehicle that looks just like the one's published
by
> FASA. We should be making a way to go from concept to stats that has rules as
> opposed to I think this would be good stats.
RE: The long-term Plan of Attack {tm} :-)
Any rules we come up with for design are going to pretty much contradict
any semblence of design rules in the RBB. At the same time, it is
possible we might end up with some combat situations that either are not
compatible with the RBB or are simply not covered. That is why I put in
the possibility of having to cover some rules changes. If it turns out in
the end that our design system is completely compatible with the RBB, then
we can all do a little dance for joy, but who know what will happen in the
end.
> One the subject of car bodies, I think we need something a little more
> specific than Mini, Small, Medium, etc. Some types of cars are quite
different
> even if they are the same size. The space break downs for VW Rabbit and a
> Camero are not the same.
If you remember my posting from last week, I mentioned the possibility of
moving spaces. Thus you can decrease the engine space to increase the
passenger space, or eliminate cargo space to toss in a bigger engine, etc.
Small, Medium, etc is just a general size class, each car in and of itself
will be unique (which greatly adds to the power of this type of design
system). I suppose I should have mentioned that again, though.
For example. I drive a Dodge Daytona Hatchback Turbo. This car would
probably be classified as a "medium" sized car (on the basis of it being a
hatchback and having a pretty decent cargo space.). In my car, cargo and
passenger space are about equal, and the engine space is about 1/3 the
size of the passenger space.
On the other hand, take a Mustang. This car has a much smaller cargo
space and an engine space size about equal to passenger. The two cars and
in the same general class, but have totally different makeups.
> Also, the Maximum Safe Control Speed stats are not realistic. The bigger a
> vehicle the more difficult it is to control and often the more unbalanced it
is.
> You don't see people whipping around corners at high speeds in Vans and
> 18-wheelers.
Vans, 18-wheelers, etc. are not cars, they are trucks, thus they would be
on a different table.
I based that on my (limited) experience with cars. I've found larger
'boat-mobiles' to be much easier to handle at high speeds than small
'Yugo-mobiles'.
Maximum Safe Control Speed is also just a random thought and opinions are
definately welcome. If it turns out it is something that isn't needed, we
can give it the ax.
> That's all for Now.
]> Robert Hayden <] [> This .signature has been made <]
]> <] [> with 85% recycled pixels. <]
]> rahayden@*****.weeg.uiowa.edu <]
]> aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]
