Okay, a few weeks ago I was making a ship and came to the mass portion of it. At first I entered a random number, but then saw that it came out to less than the outfits mass. I posted an idea to the Corsair Developers board of having a framework; and, after a bit of work. Me and Jules came up with this:

-------------

Corsair Developers Mass Framework:

Mass = h + s + j + c

where :
h = mass of hull (varies with ship size)
s = total mass of standard items
j = maximum standard number of jumps
c = crew members using the below principal :
5 tons per 15 crew members - ie 3 crew members take up I ton (or .3 tons for every crewmember)
e = size of engines - dependant on the following pricipal :
1 ton per jump (ie: average fighter has 2 tons of engine, scoutship = 8). However it also depends on the class of vessel. It takes more to pull a warship than a shuttle. So the extra tonnage for each class would be:

Fighter/Shuttle/Scoutship= 0 tons added (dependant on speed and normal cargo being taken, if fighter, perhaps add an extra .5 tons, while shuttle add nothing to the base)
Mid-weight war/trading ships= 5 tons added(dependant on speed and normal cargo being taken, if warship, perhaps add an extra 5 tons, while Trading ship add 6).
Large Cruisers (warships/freighters/basically big ships) = 15 tons added(dependant on speed and normal cargo being taken, if warship, perhaps add about 15 tons, while freighter add 17)

---------------

Okay, if anything needs clarified, please tell, and I'll fix it.

-From the Corsair Developers

------------------
Why must I lose to these idiots? -- Grand Master Nimzovich

(This message has been edited by diddlysquat (edited 05-13-2001).)

The only problem with this is that mass needs to be within a certain framework in order for impact effects, jumping, and the mass scanner to work right. I have concluded that this mass value represents a sort of effective mass, relative to the inertialess drive system used by EV/O ships, and is thus does not neccessarily correspond to the physical mass of the ship. But if your formula works, go for it! I'll stick to just assigning numbers that seem right.

------------------
(Insert Signature Here)

Quote

Originally posted by diddlysquat:
**
Fighter/Shuttle/Scoutship= 0 tons added (dependant on speed and normal cargo being taken, if fighter, perhaps add an extra .5 tons, while shuttle add nothing to the base)
Mid-weight war/trading ships= 5 tons added(dependant on speed and normal cargo being taken, if warship, perhaps add an extra 5 tons, while Trading ship add 9).
Large Cruisers (warships/freighters/basically big ships) = 15 tons added(dependant on speed and normal cargo being taken, if warship, perhaps add about 15 tons, while freighter add 20)
-From the Corsair Developers

**

You seem to have freighters outmassing similarly sized warships. Warships have to carry heavy armor and extra shield generators. Warships have survivability features like partitioned hulls,and redundent systems. Warships also need bigger engines to chase down those cowardly freighters.

Non-warships don't need any of that (though hybrid ships like the corvette might have it), so I figure your formula should be adjusted to add +15% mass to warships for the extra armor, shield, and other things.
Fighters have different requirements-- they sacrifice things like comfort and survivability so they do not recieve the 15% extra mass.

------------------

Quote

Originally posted by magicianeer:
**You seem to have freighters outmassing similarly sized warships. Warships have to carry heavy armor and extra shield generators. Warships have survivability features like partitioned hulls,and redundent systems. Warships also need bigger engines to chase down those cowardly freighters.

Non-warships don't need any of that (though hybrid ships like the corvette might have it), so I figure your formula should be adjusted to add +15% mass to warships for the extra armor, shield, and other things.
Fighters have different requirements-- they sacrifice things like comfort and survivability so they do not recieve the 15% extra mass.

**

True. Though freighters need to carry lots 'o cargo. That means more powerful engines. Maybe I'll look over it and revise.

------------------
Why must I lose to these idiots? -- Grand Master Nimzovich

Remember that the proportions don't have to be exact. How many players will be calculating mass, weight etc. to see if the ship is just right? If we can atleast get the proprotions close, it should all work out fine...

------------------
~Captain Skyblade

President of the Corsair Development Team
(url="http://"http://artworks.tmgmedia.net")Corsair Homepage(/url) | (url="http://"http://pub57.ezboard.com/bcorsairdevelopers")Corsair Web Board(/url) | (url="http://"http://pub101.ezboard.com/bstarbasedelta")Starbase Delta(/url)

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Skyblade:
**Remember that the proportions don't have to be exact. How many players will be calculating mass, weight etc. to see if the ship is just right? If we can atleast get the proprotions close, it should all work out fine...

**

If it makes sense, all the better, right? Exactness is a nice thing...

------------------
Diddly,
Recursive: n. See Recursive

Quote

Originally posted by magicianeer:
**You seem to have freighters outmassing similarly sized warships. Warships have to carry heavy armor and extra shield generators. Warships have survivability features like partitioned hulls,and redundent systems. Warships also need bigger engines to chase down those cowardly freighters.

Non-warships don't need any of that (though hybrid ships like the corvette might have it), so I figure your formula should be adjusted to add +15% mass to warships for the extra armor, shield, and other things.
Fighters have different requirements-- they sacrifice things like comfort and survivability so they do not recieve the 15% extra mass.
**

Similarly, freighters would need a lot of extra equipment that warships wouldnt need. When slowing down out of warp, the cargo carried would have a lot of extra momentum that would cause the freighter to find it hard to slow down, the cargo would need to be secured safely for the trip, and restrained while slowing out of warp. Extra reverse thrusters would be needed to combat the momentum of the cargo. It would in all actuality work out roughly the same.

ewan

------------------
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY - BREAK WIND
(url="http://"http://www.ewanc.f2s.com/")Visit My New Website!(/url)

Quote

Originally posted by Jules:
**Similarly, freighters would need a lot of extra equipment that warships wouldnt need. When slowing down out of warp, the cargo carried would have a lot of extra momentum that would cause the freighter to find it hard to slow down, the cargo would need to be secured safely for the trip, and restrained while slowing out of warp. Extra reverse thrusters would be needed to combat the momentum of the cargo. It would in all actuality work out roughly the same.

ewan
**

I guess I'll adjust it so that for the medium sized ships, traders have 6, and for the big stuff, freighters'll have 17. That sound good?

------------------
Diddly,
Recursive: adj. See Recursive

I think you missed the mass of possible cargo and outfits. If you have a bulk freighter with 470 tons of cargo, 30 tons of outfits, and 50 tons of hull/etc., the total mass should be 550 tons (unless mister burch wants to do mass calculations on the fly). Similarly, heavy warships that have maybe 50 tons of cargo, 250 tons of weapons, and 100 tons of hull/etc. should have a total of 400 tons for their mass. If you have a problem with your ships having too much mass (as far as jumping/radar goes), then just multiply it by some constant (maybe 50%). Fuel pods are usually 5 tons per jump as well.

Here's my version of the formula:
mass = hull + engines + cargo + weapons + 5 * fuel + 0.3 * crew - mass of standard outfits (from weapons' mass)

I'd also ignore the engine stuff you were talking about and just do something based on the total mass (minus engines) and the default acceleration. If your mass is 100 tons, and your acceleration is 200 newtons / ton (or whatever the units are), then maybe 20 tons (200 / 100 * 10) would be a good value (remember you'd then be multiplying by 0.5 or something).

------------------
-- Nikolaus Wegner

Quote

Originally posted by Jules:
**Similarly, freighters would need a lot of extra equipment that warships wouldnt need. When slowing down out of warp, the cargo carried would have a lot of extra momentum that would cause the freighter to find it hard to slow down, the cargo would need to be secured safely for the trip, and restrained while slowing out of warp. Extra reverse thrusters would be needed to combat the momentum of the cargo. It would in all actuality work out roughly the same.

ewan

**

Freighters have no need for agility, but merchants are very concerned about the cost of those extra engines. If it takes a long time to slow down using inadequate thrusters, the captain will be patient. If the freighter did have extra large engines, the warships would need still bigger engines to catch the freighter. Larger warships will also have backup thrusters, not present on freighters, for use when the main ones are damaged in combat.

Quote

Originally posted by nwegner:
**I think you missed the mass of possible cargo and outfits. If you have a bulk freighter with 470 tons of cargo, 30 tons of outfits, and 50 tons of hull/etc., the total mass should be 550 tons (unless mister burch wants to do mass calculations on the fly). Similarly, heavy warships that have maybe 50 tons of cargo, 250 tons of weapons, and 100 tons of hull/etc. should have a total of 400 tons for their mass. If you have a problem with your ships having too much mass (as far as jumping/radar goes), then just multiply it by some constant (maybe 50%). Fuel pods are usually 5 tons per jump as well.
**

Weapon and cargo tonnage should not be counted directly as part of the ships mass. It represents additional mass that can be added to the ship by the player, but is not currently on the ship. Now, there is some hull plating, braces and cables required to enclose this possible extra mass, which should be accounted for, but not on a 1 for 1 basis with the extra mass. I figure 1/10 of the unfilled mass should be added in.

A spacegoing freighter can get by with a hull made of plastic and propulsion from a flashlight (see those flimsy bulk freighters at New Providence). No self-respecting warship will leave port without much more substantial equipment.

Off the wall: You cannot discuss the volume of a ship/outf in EV. Density is also not accounted for. Without them, doing any mass system is shooting in the dark. I think the Corsair Developers will have to assign volume/density units to their ships and outfs if they are serious about a system of mass.

------------------

Quote

Originally posted by magicianeer:
**Weapon and cargo tonnage should not be counted directly as part of the ships mass. It represents additional mass that can be added to the ship by the player, but is not currently on the ship. Now, there is some hull plating, braces and cables required to enclose this possible extra mass, which should be accounted for, but not on a 1 for 1 basis with the extra mass. I figure 1/10 of the unfilled mass should be added in.

A spacegoing freighter can get by with a hull made of plastic and propulsion from a flashlight (see those flimsy bulk freighters at New Providence). No self-respecting warship will leave port without much more substantial equipment.**

In the absence of having the mass of cargo added to the ship's mass automatically, I think adding that cargo manually is the best option to simulate actual use/handling (freighters would try to keep a full cargo, wouldn't they? and this mass of the ship is constant, even when the player HAS put stuff into their ship). Certainly, freighters would have less overhead from their hulls/equipment, but that is accounted for with the large cargo mass in proportion to the mass of the rest of the ship.

------------------
-- Nikolaus Wegner

Quote

Originally posted by diddlysquat:
**
5 tons per 15 crew members - ie 3 crew members take up I ton (or .3 tons for every crewmember)

**

Fat crew, eh? Too much vindaloo in my opionion.

------------------
Nicholas Shanks
Author of HexEdit and ResKnife:
Available at (url="http://"http://nickshanks.com/mac/")nickshanks.com(/url)

Quote

Originally posted by Nicholas Shanks:
**Fat crew, eh? Too much vindaloo in my opionion.

**

They need life support and personal effects, don't they?

------------------
-- Nikolaus Wegner

Quote

Originally posted by Nicholas Shanks:
**Fat crew, eh? Too much vindaloo in my opionion.
**

You a Red Dwarf fan too? Good for you!

------------------
Diddly,
Recursive: adj. See Recursive

Quote

Originally posted by diddlysquat:
**You a Red Dwarf fan too? Good for you!

**

Ahhh Red Dwarf - One of the best (if not THE bast) TV programs EVER EVER EVER!!!!! I can watch an episode over and over and still find it finny - anyone remember the Arnold Rimmer song? Tee hee.

Oh wait I thought of one that can beat it - Faulty Towers.

Anyway to get back on track. The 5 tonnes for 15 crew members would include life support, stored oxygen for the journeys, sleepeing quarters (beds etc) food (vindaloo, beer etc) and all the other essentials.

Aides from that I cannot think of anything at the moment.

ewan

------------------
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY - BREAK WIND
(url="http://"http://www.ewanc.f2s.com/")Visit My New Website!(/url)

Quote

Originally posted by Jules:
**Ahhh Red Dwarf - One of the best (if not THE bast) TV programs EVER EVER EVER!!!!! I can watch an episode over and over and still find it finny - anyone remember the Arnold Rimmer song? Tee hee.

Oh wait I thought of one that can beat it - Faulty Towers.

Anyway to get back on track. The 5 tonnes for 15 crew members would include life support, stored oxygen for the journeys, sleepeing quarters (beds etc) food (vindaloo, beer etc) and all the other essentials.

Aides from that I cannot think of anything at the moment.

ewan
**

I remember the song, heehee :). The only problem with fawlty towers I have, is that it's ecruciatingly hard to watch most of it (you're screaming, "you fool! don't do that!" in your head most of the time). Though actually that applies to most british shows.

And for the possesions, don't forget cassetes of 20th century british TV shows

------------------
Diddly,
Recursive: adj. See Recursive

Quote

Originally posted by nwegner:
**They need life support and personal effects, don't they?
**

I was only trying to poke fun at him. Indeed I would suggest 0.33 tonnes per crewman is insufficient. Think about the mess hall, recreational facilities (gymnasium, holodeck et cetera ) too.

Quote

Originally posted by diddlysquat:
**You a Red Dwarf fan too? Good for you!
**

Change of plan... Leg it ! ! !

------------------
Nicholas Shanks
Author of HexEdit and ResKnife:
Available at (url="http://"http://nickshanks.com/mac/")nickshanks.com(/url)

(This message has been edited by Nicholas Shanks (edited 05-16-2001).)