Which book are you talking about?
Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
Which book are you talking about?
Dank Nyland
SOC-7
MegaTraveller Consolidated Errata V2.21
Edit: And the errata is for the Referee's Manual.
See that the only change it implies is for very high TL (16+) bay weapons, that are the only non-spinals witch are rated A+. So, unless you play with artifacts (or to some extent, the Darrian TL 16 ships) it has no real effeft.
As to how to treat them (if by adding it next to the entry in your book or just taking it into account), that's up to you (I personally hate to write on books).
See also that the combat tables are changed in the same errata document, as it was imposible to reach the 22, that is the maximum in the tables...
As to how to treat them (if by adding it next to the entry in your book or just taking it into account), that's up to you (I personally hate to write on books).
See also that the combat tables are changed in the same errata document, as it was imposible to reach the 22, that is the maximum in the tables...
Dank Nyland
SOC-7
Hmm, my problem is, that the part which the errata is for, simply does not exist in my printed rulebook.
The Errata tells me to "Replace “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less...” with “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of A or more, apply a DM of +6.”"
But there is no rule at all that states "If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less...". Instead the second entry states: "If the weapon inflicting the hit is a spinal mount,
apply a DM of +6"
What I'm not sure about is, if the errata supersede the spinal mount version also. Or is the spinal mount version still valid and the errata should be seen as an addition to the table. Or is
the errata simply obsolete for my printing an I could ignore it.
The Errata tells me to "Replace “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less...” with “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of A or more, apply a DM of +6.”"
But there is no rule at all that states "If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less...". Instead the second entry states: "If the weapon inflicting the hit is a spinal mount,
apply a DM of +6"
What I'm not sure about is, if the errata supersede the spinal mount version also. Or is the spinal mount version still valid and the errata should be seen as an addition to the table. Or is
the errata simply obsolete for my printing an I could ignore it.
I guess this is a matter of edition. In mine, it says "If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less, apply a DM of -6".
Errata is from 2013, and Don's passing away has precluded new editions to now.
Even so, the change from your printing is that it not only affects spinals, but also bays rated A+ (TL16+), so it's not fully obsolete for it.
Dank Nyland
SOC-7
I was really sad when last year I read about Don passed away. What a huge loss.
Then I keep the spinal mount entry and add the errata to the second entry.
Thank you for your help!
Then I keep the spinal mount entry and add the errata to the second entry.
Thank you for your help!
I was really sad when last year I read about Don passed away. What a huge loss.
So were all of us
You're welcome
Errata 2.1, Referee's Manual Page 62, Hull Design (clarification):
To determine the values for a non-standard hull size, just extrapolate the values from the closest hull size using the following formula to determine the modification factor:
F = N ÷ B, where:
F = the factor to apply to the base hull value, and
N = the desired non-standard hull size, and
B = the closest standard hull size to use as a base.
For example, if a 440 UCP hull size is desired, simply multiply the values for a 400 UCP hull by a factor of 1.1 (440/ 400). If, on the other hand, a 460 UCP hull is desired, then multiply the values for a 500 UCP hull by a factor of 0.92 (460/ 500).
This breaks down for small values. For example, a 1 dTon hull is Cr3300, and a 2 dTon hull is Cr3700. However, a 1.4 dTon hull is (1.4/1)*3300=Cr4620, while a 1.6 dTon hull is (1.6/2)*3700=Cr2960. Makes things difficult if you're designing a motorcycle or small cab. Is there an alternate calculation floating around out there that works better?
To determine the values for a non-standard hull size, just extrapolate the values from the closest hull size using the following formula to determine the modification factor:
F = N ÷ B, where:
F = the factor to apply to the base hull value, and
N = the desired non-standard hull size, and
B = the closest standard hull size to use as a base.
For example, if a 440 UCP hull size is desired, simply multiply the values for a 400 UCP hull by a factor of 1.1 (440/ 400). If, on the other hand, a 460 UCP hull is desired, then multiply the values for a 500 UCP hull by a factor of 0.92 (460/ 500).
This breaks down for small values. For example, a 1 dTon hull is Cr3300, and a 2 dTon hull is Cr3700. However, a 1.4 dTon hull is (1.4/1)*3300=Cr4620, while a 1.6 dTon hull is (1.6/2)*3700=Cr2960. Makes things difficult if you're designing a motorcycle or small cab. Is there an alternate calculation floating around out there that works better?
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello Carlobrand,
TNE FF&S Mk I, Mod 1 (January 1994) p. 5 has a block titled Interpolation, unfortunately I do not recall how well this works. Anyway here is the information.
"As an example, look at the CPR Gun table on page 109, and assume we want to know the weight of a 7.72 cm gun. We know the weights for a 7cm gun (.54 tons) and for an 8cm gun (.66 tonnes).
To interpolate, first find out how far between the two reference points your intermediate data point falls. This is done in three steps
Step 1: Subtract the lower reference point from the higher reference point. 8cm-7cm= 1cm
Step 2: Subtract the lower reference point from the intermediate reference point. 7.62cm-7cm=0.62cm
Step 3: Divide the result in Step 2 by the result of Step1. This will be a decimal value. 0.62÷1=0.62
In the case of our example, the result will be 0.62.
Second, find out the differences in values between the two reference points, by subtracting the lower value from the higher value. In our example, the difference is 0.12 tons.
Third, multiply the decimal value of the difference in data points times the difference in values and add the result to the lower of the two reference point values. In our example, we multiply 0.62 time 0.12 (product of 0.0774) and add it to the lowest data point value (0.54) for a result of 0.6144. The 7.72cm gun weighs 0.6144 tonnes (614.4 kilograms)."
I hope this helps,
Tom Rux
TNE FF&S Mk I, Mod 1 (January 1994) p. 5 has a block titled Interpolation, unfortunately I do not recall how well this works. Anyway here is the information.
"As an example, look at the CPR Gun table on page 109, and assume we want to know the weight of a 7.72 cm gun. We know the weights for a 7cm gun (.54 tons) and for an 8cm gun (.66 tonnes).
To interpolate, first find out how far between the two reference points your intermediate data point falls. This is done in three steps
Step 1: Subtract the lower reference point from the higher reference point. 8cm-7cm= 1cm
Step 2: Subtract the lower reference point from the intermediate reference point. 7.62cm-7cm=0.62cm
Step 3: Divide the result in Step 2 by the result of Step1. This will be a decimal value. 0.62÷1=0.62
In the case of our example, the result will be 0.62.
Second, find out the differences in values between the two reference points, by subtracting the lower value from the higher value. In our example, the difference is 0.12 tons.
Third, multiply the decimal value of the difference in data points times the difference in values and add the result to the lower of the two reference point values. In our example, we multiply 0.62 time 0.12 (product of 0.0774) and add it to the lowest data point value (0.54) for a result of 0.6144. The 7.72cm gun weighs 0.6144 tonnes (614.4 kilograms)."
I hope this helps,
Tom Rux
Thanks. Interpolation is what I think I'll go to. The canon table runs to some sort of curve. I think they were trying to achieve the same thing when calculating nonstandard sizes but it doesn't work, at least not down at the shallow end. I think a straight line interpolation will work just fine at the little end.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
A variant interpolation algorithm... one acknowledging that it's a log function...
X is desired tonnage
Y is resulting factor
A is tonnage of highest table value below X
B is tonnage of lowest table value above X
F is factor from A
find C= B-A
find D=X-A
E = (D/C)²
Y = (E*C)+F
A better version of this is changing A to previous logn integer, and B to next highest integer logarithm.
For the true best fit, the OCD will average all three methods, with the third used in two different log bases...
X is desired tonnage
Y is resulting factor
A is tonnage of highest table value below X
B is tonnage of lowest table value above X
F is factor from A
find C= B-A
find D=X-A
E = (D/C)²
Y = (E*C)+F
A better version of this is changing A to previous logn integer, and B to next highest integer logarithm.
For the true best fit, the OCD will average all three methods, with the third used in two different log bases...
So (my math is rusty):
((((X-A)/(B-A))^2)*(B-A))+F
((X-A)/(B-A))*((X-A)/(B-A))*(B-A)+F
((X-A)*(X-A))/((B-A)*(B-A))*(B-A)+F
((X-A)*(X-A))/(B-A)+F
What does "factor from A" mean?
in the case of MT Hulls, the hull multiplier for entry of tonnage A.
I accidentally screwed up the bottom line.
G= Factor from B.
Y = (E * (G-F))+F
Questions regarding control panels:
1. From Errata 2.1: "If its control point (CP) needs are very low, a craft can get by without a computer. The “linked” control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence built into them. A control panel unit with a volume of 1 kiloliter involves much more than just the control panel face—the volume includes all the circuitry links necessary to make the control panel work. In fact, very little of the control panel volume is actual “panel”. "
It's not explicitly stated what volume of linked control panel can be used without a computer, but the phrasing seems to imply 1 kiloliter. Is this correct?
2. Was there ever a consensus reached on the question of crew positions in the 100+ dT craft? Taking a couple of cubic meters out of the extended accommodations is workable since the rules do state starships and spacecraft "require extended accommodations rather than crew accommodations," though I wish they'd been a bit more explicit. Bit cramped where that bunk is concerned, but I've already had to rethink my image of the stateroom volume, so I've got some extra space. Bit of a headache for long-range small craft though: as written, they need both the crew position and the long-range accommodation, and explicitly stating the accommodation already provides for such needs would free up that space for other needs. Changing that last bit might be worthwhile.
(The old CT diagrams, like Supplement 7, showed about a sixth of the deck volume given over to between-deck spaces and machinery, which I assumed came from the stateroom volume instead of the bridge volume, there being insufficient CT Book-5 bridge to account for it all, and it helped explain the high cost of the staterooms. Now I've got environment and life support volumed and budgeted separately, and a half-million credits budgeted toward very high quality refrigerators, washer/dryers, ultrabig wall-TVs, adjustable-firmness mattresses with motorized head and foot elevation controls, some lovely decorative lamp-shades, and so on. It's actually rather hard to think like a rich person.)
3. Can we have a fractional control panel, for those really little vehicles? If so, what is the minimum?
1. From Errata 2.1: "If its control point (CP) needs are very low, a craft can get by without a computer. The “linked” control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence built into them. A control panel unit with a volume of 1 kiloliter involves much more than just the control panel face—the volume includes all the circuitry links necessary to make the control panel work. In fact, very little of the control panel volume is actual “panel”. "
It's not explicitly stated what volume of linked control panel can be used without a computer, but the phrasing seems to imply 1 kiloliter. Is this correct?
2. Was there ever a consensus reached on the question of crew positions in the 100+ dT craft? Taking a couple of cubic meters out of the extended accommodations is workable since the rules do state starships and spacecraft "require extended accommodations rather than crew accommodations," though I wish they'd been a bit more explicit. Bit cramped where that bunk is concerned, but I've already had to rethink my image of the stateroom volume, so I've got some extra space. Bit of a headache for long-range small craft though: as written, they need both the crew position and the long-range accommodation, and explicitly stating the accommodation already provides for such needs would free up that space for other needs. Changing that last bit might be worthwhile.
(The old CT diagrams, like Supplement 7, showed about a sixth of the deck volume given over to between-deck spaces and machinery, which I assumed came from the stateroom volume instead of the bridge volume, there being insufficient CT Book-5 bridge to account for it all, and it helped explain the high cost of the staterooms. Now I've got environment and life support volumed and budgeted separately, and a half-million credits budgeted toward very high quality refrigerators, washer/dryers, ultrabig wall-TVs, adjustable-firmness mattresses with motorized head and foot elevation controls, some lovely decorative lamp-shades, and so on. It's actually rather hard to think like a rich person.)
3. Can we have a fractional control panel, for those really little vehicles? If so, what is the minimum?
The whole paragraph in Consolidated Errata 2013 (the last versión I know about):
See that last sentence talks about a single person being able to opéeate up to 12 kl of controls, and AFAIK there's no limit to how many controls may be used without a computer (but if you have more than a few CP neds, it's quite inefficient).
Not talked about, AFAIK, but I guess not. As I understand it, one panel is the mínimum you can have.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No computer is absolutely necessary. Step 3 details the need for a computer. The erratum is for step 3. The erratum overrules the requirement on p60 for all craft to have computers.
Steps 4 and 5 still require a computer for linked control panels and add-ons.
You can always use non-linked control panels without a computer.
My interpretation is either "crew positions", double "crew positions", or "extended accommodation" for all craft, not both.
Note that Step 6 on p82 gives Vehicle crew positions in three variants:
0 h ≤ time spent ≤ 8 h : Crew Positions
8 h < time spent ≤ 24 h : double Crew Positions
24 h < time spent < ∞ : Extended Accommodations
But I agree that gives very little room aboard spacecraft, especially with small staterooms.
I would say no. They are given as units, and what would half a HUD be?
On the other hand it is a tiny problem, and if you need it to build micro-drones or something I don't see any issue.
Note the erratum:
Last edited:
You have to use non-linked control panels without a computer; they "cannot use a computer." The absence of any sort of linked panel before TL8 renders the TL5-7 computers useless for control of vehicles built at those tech levels and would make it impossible to design a TL5-7 craft that complied with that rule. That bit by itself made it clear that, contrary to the rule on page 60, you could build craft without a computer - else you couldn't build TL5-7 vehicles.
However, the rules as a whole are sufficiently complicated and error-ridden that it was probably a good idea to add an erratum to make that point clear.
Still, Step 3 is, "If a computer is desired, select one from the list below. A computer multiplies the number of CP input into it by the CP multiple shown. It reduces the number of control panel units needed to control the craft." Then there's a listing of computers followed by some rules about them and how many of them are needed by craft of different types. There's nothing in there that explains why an erratum for that section would say that "
linked control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence built into them."
So, why even mention that linked control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence, if it's not speaking to the Step 4 rule about linked control panels requiring a computer? Why bother mentioning linked control panels in that erratum at all if not to clarify something about how linked control panels specifically are handled? On the other hand, letting the crewman control 12 kiloliters of linked control panels, basically everything he can reach, without a computer basically eliminates the "linked control panels need a computer" rule - though that does seem to be how the section reads.
I would agree with that.
Curses. Leaves a bit of a headache between 0.05 CP and 0.5 CP. If for example you need 0.07 CP, you're adding 100 to 400 liters to something. I'm not sure what it is about control panel design that would set a bottom line of 100 to 400 liters. That's especially a lot if you're building a TL5 vehicle; you've got a sudden leap there between nothing and a volume equivalent to a 100-gallon beer barrel, no middle ground. Seems to me the primary limitation that an engineer wanting to build controls for something small would face would be how small before it becomes impractical for your hands and eyes. But, yeah, that seems to be the consensus: nothing smaller than one panel.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
This particular erratum is not very clear, in my eyes. I have to assume that if they wanted to change Step 4 they would do that in the erratum for Step 4, not in the erratum for Step 3.
The paragraph in question talks about several things, without clear connection:
I would break this down to something like:
If its control point (CP) needs are very low, a craft can get by without a computer.
Obviously? (Except by p60.)
The “linked” control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence built into them.
Fluff? This MIGHT be connected to the previous sentence?
Cf Audi Virtual Cockpit; this "control panel" uses considerable computer power to draw pretty pictures of e.g. the speedo to keep the driver entertained.
A control panel unit with a volume of 1 kiloliter involves much more than just the control panel face—the volume includes all the circuitry links necessary to make the control panel work. In fact, very little of the control panel volume is actual “panel”.
Fluff? Not connected the previous? I assume this is always true, regardless of computer control.
Take a normal car; the "control panel" includes not just the dash and steering wheel, but the entire steering column, servo, and steering rack. The visible part is only a small part of the "control panel".
As a rough guide, the maximum number of control panel units that one person can operate and monitor is 12 kiloliters.
Useful guideline. I assume that this is generally applicable, and have nothing to do with the computer?
The paragraph in question talks about several things, without clear connection:
I would break this down to something like:
If its control point (CP) needs are very low, a craft can get by without a computer.
Obviously? (Except by p60.)
The “linked” control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence built into them.
Fluff? This MIGHT be connected to the previous sentence?
Cf Audi Virtual Cockpit; this "control panel" uses considerable computer power to draw pretty pictures of e.g. the speedo to keep the driver entertained.
A control panel unit with a volume of 1 kiloliter involves much more than just the control panel face—the volume includes all the circuitry links necessary to make the control panel work. In fact, very little of the control panel volume is actual “panel”.
Fluff? Not connected the previous? I assume this is always true, regardless of computer control.
Take a normal car; the "control panel" includes not just the dash and steering wheel, but the entire steering column, servo, and steering rack. The visible part is only a small part of the "control panel".
As a rough guide, the maximum number of control panel units that one person can operate and monitor is 12 kiloliters.
Useful guideline. I assume that this is generally applicable, and have nothing to do with the computer?
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
