| From: | JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Rigger Book 2 |
| Date: | Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:22:56 EST |
> OK, where to start... Airliner = Heavy Duty Aricraft <?> with two to five
> heavy propellor or turbofan engines????? Propellor?? Since when??
> Turbofan????? Some low powered commercial planes still have turboprops,
> but those dinosaurs are fast disappearing. Commercial planes use Jet
> engines.
When I cast the chassis type of airliner, I was thinking of a large-bodied
aircraft that is larger than those smaller twin-engine airplanes that airlines
use for regional or commuter flights (such as American Eagle, ComAir, and so
on). So Airliner is a broad category that covers everything from a Boeing 707
to a 747.
Within that Airliner category, there is one type of large-bodied plane that
comes to my mind: the C-130 Hercules, which is powered by four propeller
engines. C-130s still see regular use in the Air Force nowadays, so it could
be conceivable something like it could be operating in 2060. (And besides,
even if there weren't, there's no doubt that SOMEONE would want to
retroactively design a C-130 in SR stats.)
> Under Bikes you have Choppers as a type. Chops are made from another type
> of bike. What you meant (I think) is the heavy bike like the Honda
> GoldWing, a completely different item.
Perhaps. But "chopper" is the slang term that I'm familiar with, and no doubt
many other people are too. So I call it a chopper because that's what (mostly)
everyone will think of. Perhaps not the most accurate of terms, but as far as
the common layman (such as I in this matter) is concerned, it's good enough.
> Under fuels you seem to have forgotten the one that probably will take over
> vice all the rest. Alcohol. 80% efficiency vice Gasoline. In a
> -supercharged- <Not Turbocharged, those are antique, less effective than
> iron lungs> engine gives better performance than gasoline.
Again, perhaps. But again, I'm using labels to reflect common perceptions.
"Gasoline" reflects the low-flashpoint fuels used in common commercial
vehicles. "Diesel" refers to the industrial-grade fuel used by heavier
vehicles (such as trucks, tanks, and ships).
I also remember the days during the energy crisis of the late 70s/early 80s
when gasohol (gasoline-alcohol mixture) was popular. If alcohol is as
efficient as you say it is, can you please tell me why gasohol is no longer
being used today? (And if so, where so?)
> Economy: Right out back of our apartment we have two cars. A 95 Honda CX
> and a 95 Neon. The Honda is good for 17.5km/ltr normally and the Neon
> gives 15.5 km/ltr. Your economy maximums are waaaayyy off. Actually, all
> of them are off.
The economy range for a sedan (the vehicle type in dispute) ranges from 8 to
14 km/liter, or about 20 to 34 mpg. True, one can get better economies with
certain types of cars, but there's also the industrial consideration, as to
what the manufacturer is *willing* to produce (another factor taken into
consideration in the vehicle design system). The current trend lately with
auto manufacturers is to produce higher-powered, economy-inefficient cars.
True, with all the concern about the ozone layer, fuel economies might go on
the upswing, as car companies get pressured to build more fuel-efficient cars.
But then again, Shadowrun is supposed to be a quasi-cyberpunk world where the
corps don't care about such niceties as "environmental protection." With that
in mind, I biased the economy ranges a bit to be on the lower end of the
scale.
> Recoil systems: Hydro-pneumatic is the way it's being done right now.
> Works fine, and works with gyro-stabilization as well. Used in the Abrams
> and Bradley for example. Zero recoil!
True. But hydro-pneumatic systems are assumed to be the "default," and with
ANY system there is always some room for error. What I mean with the gunnery
recoil adjuster are *higher*-precision, compact, state-of-the-art, advanced
systems that have a lower variance than the default hydro-penumatic systems.
> Painting a target with a laser... Use Firearms for the paint if you want
> to be accurate and obsolete. Since 91 they use ranging laser, GPS, and a
> mini-comp to give the firing piece a 9 digit map co-ordinate. The round
> will hit within 9 cm of the co-ordinate. These are artillery pieces, not
> Air Force drop and pray weapons.
I assume you are talking about the Indirect Fire rules on pp. 60-61. If not,
please clarify.
What you are describing sounds to me very much like the general system used by
the V/GLLD artillery targeting system used by artillery FIST teams. Yes, you
can get that amount of precision (and a variance of 9 cm requires at least a
ten digit grid, not 9), but remember that a 9-digit coordinate tells the round
to hit a point on the ground. If the target moves during the time of flight,
you may result in a miss. (When I went to NTC and CMTC with my old MLRS unit,
the hardest task we had was performing counterfire against the Kraznovian
2S19s. 2S19s are the Soviet equivalent of the 109A6 Paladin and had very good
shoot-and-scoot capability. Because MLRS has long FMP and flight times, more
often than not all we were doing was pounding sand, since the 2S19s were long
since gone.)
The Indirect Fire rules cover this, but they also cover dynamic situations
where a spotter is in (digital) contact with the firer, allowing the round to
make corrections in mid-flight. A common example of this is the "painting
laser" technique, such as the conjunction between the mast-mounted sensor on
the OH-58D Kiowa and the Hellfire missile fired from an AH-64D Apache, or the
Copperhead anti-tank artillery round in conjunction with the aforementioned
V/GLLD.
A couple other comments of note (answering various comments about Rigger 2 in
general and not necessarily yours in particular):
-- When I designed the vehicle construction system, what I (and FASA Mike) was
aiming for was a *flexible* system that could handle anything from handheld
spider-drones to 95,000 tonne aircraft carriers, and everything in between.
That's a lot of ground to cover. So I'm well aware of the "inaccuracies," but
for the sake of adhering to the KISS principle of engineering, I decided the
system could live with it, for the sake of simplicity. No, it's not perfect,
but at least it's a start.
-- Another thing worth mentioning is that Rigger 2, as part of the Shadowrun
system, adheres to some established guidelines for the game system, both
written and unwritten. One guideline in particular is that Shadowrun is (by
its design) a relatively linear system, and the math requirements are limited
only to algebraic or pre-algebraic math.
Unfortunately, technology rarely works on a linear system. Instead, its
scale can be geometric, inverse-square, exponential, or logarithmic. (FASA
Mike had a fit when I showed him a formula that had a square root in it!) So,
to keep it within the Shadowrun system, I had to simplify much of the math,
which, again, sacrifices a little bit of realism. And again, oh well, we can
probably live with that.
-- Some people here and elsewhere maintain that Shadowrun is more "cinematic"
than it is "realistic," so all of the above might not matter to them.
My $2 (I know I've exceeded $.02)
-- Jon
