| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, November 19, 2025 - 10:08 pm: Edit |
FS (R1.5) [BS] is the basic small freighter {M = 0.33}
HTG (R1.59) [R8] is a FS with a 'special' skid (3 APR + Trac) {MF = 0.25} closest official SSD to ballast FS.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 20, 2025 - 10:13 pm: Edit |
I was only at the office for an hour today while taking Leanna to the treatments that are preventing blindness, but I left this issue on Petrick's desk.
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 12:13 am: Edit |
I'd point out the exact same questions exist for the pod-less Large Freighter (in Ballast).
Also, the rules for skids indicate that there is no movement cost increase when installed on a freighter. Strictly speaking, one can take the rule as written to mean that skids never increase a freighter's move cost regardless of how many of them are installed to a freighter. Maybe I'm over thinking it, but it doesn't seem realistic that a Small Freighter with two or three skids should have no more movement cost than the same freighter with only one skid (double the number for a large freighter).
It might be a good thing to clarify if more than one skid on an F-S (double for the F-L), increases the move cost at all & what said move costs are if increased.
| By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 02:06 am: Edit |
According to R1.68 (Module R8) Skids are only 3 meters wide/long and a Smal Friegter can operate up to 3 before it can not carry a Pod. With this in mind I don't think you would suffer a movement penalty if you had 3 or less skids and then the 4th would make it the equivalent of a half pod.
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 10:34 am: Edit |
Dal,
Skids are 3 meters long, but 40 meters wide. That's a lot of total desk space added per skid. Also, An F-S cannot carry ANY pod if more than one skid is installed (two for an F-L).
Speaking of the skids only being 3 meters long... How wide is a heavy transport shuttle? A LASH skid being only 3 meters long means the shuttle bay is EXTREMELY cramped and the HTS is VERY narrow. I suspect these are dimensions never initially considered when the concept of Skids were entered into the game system. But it certainly points out some unrealistic expectations of what should be able to fit in a skid shuttle bay. Hmmm, maybe the HTS is narrower than 3 meters. Or perhaps the shuttle bay floor is at 90 degrees to the rest of the deck and the gravity generators in the shuttle bay also work at 90 degrees. Makes one wonder.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 05:52 pm: Edit |
Robert, for what it's worth, here was the icons I used in my deck plans.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 06:09 pm: Edit |
R11, pg3 updated that to "These were cylinders that were the standard 40 meters in diameter but were only three-to-ten meters long"
Before R11 used tardis skids shoved into a bag of holding inside Hermoine's purse with lots of lube.
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 01:17 pm: Edit |
Garth,
What is the FJ shuttle from?
And what are the 4 seat and two seat shuttles from?
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 02:23 pm: Edit |
Robert, FJ is from the Franz Joseph Tech Manual. I do not want to think about the amount of time I sat there measuring everything in the book to get the size exactly right.
The 4-seat / 2-seat version are my own design, completely from scratch. The worker-bee is also my design but based off other art found online.
Oh, and I created the people icons, too. 
Garth L. Getgen
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 03:25 pm: Edit |
Good work, Garth. Whip up something (maybe shuttles or workbees) we haven’t done before and i will reserve space in CL55.
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 02:13 am: Edit |
Then from an SFB perspective, could that FJ shuttle be an MRS?
| By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 03:08 am: Edit |
More likely an Advanced Shuttle. Other shuttle variants (MRS, MSS, GÀS and so on and so forth...) would still be based on the ADB shuttle.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 10:20 am: Edit |
Actually, I use the FJ shuttle as the "older" model and the smaller ADB model (sized to what are in other ADB published deck plans) as the "newer" model. That said, if SVC wants them to be otherwise, I'm okay with that.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, December 01, 2025 - 03:27 pm: Edit |
NOTE: Do not use the 4-Seat / 2-Seat civilian shuttles from the image I posted above!
I sized them against the "mid-size car" symbol / icon that came with my CAD program, but the other day I discovered that it's way too small, like Mini Cooper size. Ergo, I resized those shuttles and then just for the fun of it built an all-new type of civilian shuttle. Oh, and I redid the car icon to make it the size of a Toyota Corolla or my Subaru Impreza.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, December 10, 2025 - 04:55 pm: Edit |
While looking at the Klingon D3 and D3G. The D3 can control the number of seeking weapons equal to its sensor rating, but the D3G can control a number of seeking weapons equal to half its sensor rating.
There is only 1 entry for the D3-Bm and both ships have the same systems on the SSD for the boom. What would the seeking weapon control be for the D3G boom? The answer will end up going across all the various booms and saucers.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, December 14, 2025 - 12:39 pm: Edit |
The D3G boom is the same as other D3 booms, thus will have the same seeking weapon control. However, when attached to the D3G rear hull, all of the extra transporters, especially these very old, primitive transporters, interfere with the seeking weapon control, effectively cutting its capabilities in half.
How's that? Will that work?
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 14, 2025 - 03:43 pm: Edit |
Nope, as the bridge is in the boom, which is where I would think the seeking weapons control would come from.
An entry in Annex 3 for a D3 Boom (1/2 Seeking Weapon Control) would work or create an entry for the D3G.
The question is not just about the D3G but all the units and their boom/saucers that have similar issues.
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 14, 2025 - 05:03 pm: Edit |
I found an old email that answers the question about the seeking weapons.
E-Mail Steve Petrick 5/9/2015 14:19:00
Side note: I am still looking for an answer if a separated boom or aft section can control a number of seeking weapons equal to double its sensor rating when the ship separates. If the seeking weapon control goes with the sections that have drones would be acceptable. Not sure if it should stay with the bridge or auxiliary control. REPLY: Both sections would have it.
Based on the email both sections would have the same seeking weapon control so there should be entries or notes for the seeking weapon control on the SSD.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, December 14, 2025 - 06:34 pm: Edit |
Seeking weapon control involves a lot of non-SSD material. Slightly different sensors, tracking computers, and so on. Things that look the same on the SSD but function slightly differently.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |