| From: | Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Vehicle Economy (was RE: What is a CF?) |
| Date: | Wed, 6 May 1998 10:03:44 +1000 |
Jr[SMTP:craigjwjr@*********.NET] wrote:
> Now the only real problem I have with R2 is economy. I know
the reason
> it's low is to fit with SUX-2000-type-gas-guzzling-grittyness of a
> cyberpunk(-ish) setting. But come on... What if someone wants to make
a
> long range van type thing like my group had with RBB? I really can't
since
> the best economy I can get with a van is 2.37mpg! Oh sure, I could, if
I
> went and gave it a 500 gallon gas tank...(?!?!?) Where would I put it?
I
> guess I could just continue and add economy with the standard formula
and
> ignore maximums. Can anyone think of any problems I might run into if
I did
> this? Besides jacking prices throught the roof that is. :)
I have run into this problem as well. I have a thing for
vehicles with ultra-long ranges (mainly because I keep thinking about
running them unsupported in the Australian outback). For ground vehicles
it's not too difficult to make a vehicle which has a long range. But it
is really hard to make a drone with that sort of range, especially if
you want to put in a military sensor pack.
My current pet project is thinking about high-speed, long range
strategic recon drones (sort of an unmanned SR-71). When I started
playing around with the design rules the other day, you can get a large
UAV with a top of the line military sensor pack to only go at most a
couple of hundred k's.
I'm thinking about using a jet fighter airframe when I have
another go, but removing the crew compartment. If you think this is a
bit munchkinous, you had better go have a word with the USAF. While I
was still working for the Australian DoD last year, I read a paper from
the USAF where they were talking about converting old F16 airframes to
unmanned vehicles, mainly because it was a more cost effective way of
delivering weapons without having to train pilots and then lose them in
combat. It was also more cost effective than cruise missiles, in which
the avionics package is destroyed when the weapon detonates. With an
unmanned fighter, they can use conventional smart weapons and have the
avionics package come home for another mission.
Personally, I think the economy ratings for most powerplants are
way too low. Jon may have been basing things on some of the American
manufacturers, which are not so concerned with economy. But it becomes a
bigger issue out here.
Somehow I doubt I could make my old Hyundai Excel hatchback
using the shadowrun rules. The best trip I ever got out of that baby was
728km off a single 45L tank of petrol (16.167km/L). I could regularly
get 500km+ from a single tank around town, and 600-650km on the freeway.
cheers
Geoff
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165
"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
