> I haven't gotten a chance to review your calculations in detail, but
at first glance they look reasonable.
Hopefully the review of my work matches the reasonable look the first
glance indicates. I’m keeping my fingers crossed when I’m not typing.
> I suggest that the back-up system should not consume power or require
crew; the backup can be manned and powered-on when needed.
Based on Ethan McKinney’s comment I have changed the power requirement for
the Medium Military sensor packages. For the TL-9 medium military package the
power requirement for the LADAR/LIDAR goes from 4.8 to 2.4 MW and the Medium
Military packages 23.1 drops to 20.7 MW.
The TL-9 Medium Military package crew per the reply received on 4/29/15
1:18 PM, the medium package had the hard-coded number of five systems which are
the RADAR, LADAR/LIDAR, back-up LADAR/LIDAR, HRT, and RADAR Jammer. Changing the
back-up from requiring crew to not requiring changes the hard-coding from five
to four. The Medium Military Package Crew changes from 3.3 to 2.6.
>> 2. The Consolidated TNE Errata, p.
35, has directions for adding the note: Antenna Price (in MCr) = Antenna Area
x 0.05 below the Radar on TNE FF&S p. 50. The addition of antenna price
changes the final price of the TL-9 sensor
packages.
> Right. I'm sure this item was not included in QSDS, so the price
of the TL-9 sensor packages will change.
Yes, the TL-9 packages prices do change a tiny bit as the result of the
Consolidated TNE Errata entry of including the price of radar’s antenna.
>>
3. Jammers are not mentioned in the Sensor overview on QSDS p. 10. But they
are listed in the USD column of the Standard Sensor Systems Table on p. 11.
TNE FF&S p. 53, indicates that a there are four types of jammer. There is
a jammer designed to be used against a radio communicator, another one for
radar, and one for the AEMS. The fourth system is an area jammer which
degrades radio and sensors. My guess is that the jammers used in QSDS are for
radar and the AEMS. At minimum I would suggest adding a radio jammer as part
of the small and medium military sensor packages. An alternative would be to
have three separate jammers to cover TL-9 and introduce the area jammer at
TL-10.
> QSDS packages currently include only an EMS jammer (or radar jammer at
TLs where the EMS jammer is unavailable). For purposes of producing
> errata, I don't think that we should modify the capabilities of the
existing sensor packages. They are what they are - and certainly there
are
> innumerable other conceivable packages that might be included.
So for errata purposes, we should limit our changes to correcting errors in
the
> existing tables.
After further review I withdraw my suggestions of changing the existing
sensor packages by adding the radio jammer to the TL-9 packages and changing the
AEMS jammer to an Area jammer. Ethan McKinney pointed out that in the real world
a radar jammer is capable of jamming radio and the only advantage I found for
having an Area jammer is a smaller antenna.
> That said, if you would like to produce data for an add-on expanded
set of electronics packages (kind-of an electronics-focussed version of the
"QSDS
> Big Book of Hulls"), that would be excellent. At minimum, it
would be nice to expand the sensors and communications tables to include
TL-13
> through TL-15. It would also be nice to add an "advanced"
civilian sensor package, and produce more options for military packages - for
example, it
> would be nice to have Scout and Wild Weasel packages at each TL.
Another item to add to my future projects list, luckily that list is much
shorter than the list I’ve got for the gaming material I’d like to
acquire.
>> The Improved package increases the range of
the active sensor.
> This should be obvious from the data table.
The original entry is: “The Improved package increases the range of basic
sensors.” Yes, the data table entries for minimum hull length,
volume, power, cost, and area indicates there are changes to the installed basic
and improved sensors. To recap, on 4/30/15 approximately 5:01 PM I indicated
that the only way I was able to match the Sensor USD column was by dividing the
sensor’s short range by 30,000 which is equal to TNE Space Combat hexes.
(Actually, I looked at the design tables and then stumbled onto the TNE Space
Combat rules.) However, when I built the basic and improved packages only the
active sensor increased range for TL-9, TL-10, and TL-11 in the improved
packages. At TL-12 the ranges for both the improved active and passive sensors
increased. My suggested change, looks like I’m out to lunch again, was based on
the active sensor range changes for the four tech levels shown. Unfortunately, I
overlooked the passive sensor improved package range change at TL-12. My
suggestion is withdrawn as currently shown, however the original entry is, in my
opinion, still not accurate since the passive sensor only increases range over
the basic package at TL-12. Unfortunately, I have not been able to come up with
anything better.
>> Both military packages add a LADAR system for
accurate range-finding and target designation, jammers (radar or AEMS when available),
>> Not all of the military packages listed include
jammers. For example, the TL-10 small military package has a jamming USD
of 0.
>> I believe this was done to make the package fit in specific
constraints (cost, area, power, etc.) we had established for each package
category.
>> The fact that some of the military packages include jammers should
be obvious from the table.
My suggested change is based on the discussion notes from 4/28/15 9:21 AM
in response to “Q: How was the Jammer data calculated?”
“Based on the above, I suspect the jammer data are based on the FF&S
short range of a suitable radar jammer or AEMS jammer, divided by 30,000 just
like the active and passive sensor values.”" I’m also fairly sure that jammers
are only actually installed in the military sensor systems – civilian sensor
systems don’t include jammers.
That being said, there is a discrepancy with the TL-10 Small Military
sensors – there is no jammer value supplied (even though TL-9 and TL-11 sensors
included jammers). I don’t know if I forgot to include the jammer in the sensor
package, or forgot to include the jammer’s capability in the USD. Going by the
pattern of the rest of the small military sensor packages, it should have a J2
jammer included.”
> While the type of jammer is important to re-creating the designs in
FF&S, I seem to recall that they aren't important in terms of the T4
game
> itself. QSDS exists to support roleplaying using the basic T4
rules, so a lot of details that don't have specific game effects are omitted in
the interest
> of saving space and simplifying the system.
I’ll admit to being light on the basic T4 rules in general, however the
focus is trying to verify the provided T4 Book 1 hulls >= 100 displacement
tons match the QSDS in support of Donald McKinney’s Consolidated T4 Errata
request.
>> The passive
sensor antenna diameter determines the
minimum hull length and size in displacement tons
the sensor can be mounted on.
> QSDS uses either displacement tons or hull length as the
constraint, not both. Early versions of QSDS used a "Min Hull" and
required that ships be
> built only with the hulls listed. Later versions switched to
"Min Length" to allow use of additional hulls (for example, from the "QSDS Big
Book of
> Hulls"). For compatibility with the "QSDS Big Book of Hulls", we
should continue to use length.
I was just trying to cover all the bases by including the hull displacement
tons cross-referenced to hull length from the Hull Size table and using the TNE
folding array requirement. In the TL-9 sensor package requirements I included
both. I will not include the displacement tons in the TL-10 through TL-12
packages.
> Strictly speaking, the largest antenna in the package determines the
minimum length for a ship mounting these sensors. This is normally the
passive
> sensor, but possible other sensor packages in an as-yet-unwritten
"QSDS Big Book of Sensors" could have their size dictated by something other
than
> the passive sensor antenna.
Another project to the list of items to keep me off the streets and out of
trouble.
Passive sensor antennas for the basic and improved
packages are fixed array while the military packages use folding
arrays.
Similar to the above, I don't recall that T4 had any rules specifically for
fixed versus folding sensor arrays, so this detail was omitted in the QSDS.
In the QSDS the only way I was able to match the hull size requirements was
using the TNE FF&S fixed or folding array criteria from the HRT and PEMS
Table Notes on TNE FF&S page 52. T4 Book B FF&S Sensor Options p. 73
Folding Arrays allows the designer to decide on using a folding array if the
ship is too small to mount the sensor versus TNE FF&S requiring that the
antenna must be a folding array.