Greetings once again,

-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Wildstar
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:04 PM
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Subject: Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question

On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:35 AM, xxxxxx@comcast.net wrote:
>> When I could not find my QSDS 1.5e my searching led me to BITS archive
>> and found this: QSDS v1.5.1

> I'm pretty sure that the BITS archive QSDS 1.5.1 is my version 1.5e.

I'll confirm the BITS QSDS 1.5.1 archive file when opened is version 1.5e,
which I had intended to say in the original reference. I can't point my
finger to web gremlins I simply forgot to include the bit of information.

> This version fixed the HEPlaR fuel consumption.

I skipped looking at T4 Book 1 Chapter 8 QSDS and started with QSDS 1.5e
asking questions on the COTI T4 and TNE forum pages. Unfortunately, the
response on the two forums were not getting me anywhere. Then I got very
lucky here on the TML and my little project is doing more than spinning
wheels.

> Producing QSDS 1.6 may help to bring others into using T4 QSDS for quick
> ship design.

> Agreed; once we have a set of errata for QSDS, I'll make a version 1.6
> that includes all of them, and we can forward it to Don for inclusion ion
> the T4
> errata package.

>> Another thank you is in order for the work and the BITS archive has QSDS
>> Big Book of Hulls

> That's the one!

Hopefully, I won't have to download them again.

>> QSDS 1.5e has the active sensor of the TL-10 through TL-12 medium
>> military package as being A16. Using the equation 3 km x 10^16 equals
>> 30,000,000,000,000,000 km. The best TNE FF&S Active sensor short range is
>> 480,000 km provided by the AEMS. Doing a reverse lookup on the chart
>> above the Active USD is 5 not 16.
>
>> As mentioned earlier when I converted the 480,000 km to TNE Space Combat
>> hexes using the equation Short Range 480,000 km divided by one
>> 30,000 km combat hex I was able to match the QSDS A16 USD value.
>
>> Where did I go off the track here.

>> I don't think you went off track - if what you were doing before was
>> producing reasonable values, then by all means go with it.  My notes are
>> out of
>> context, and while this could have been something we were considering, it
>> is quite possible that we didn't wind up using it in the end.

> So my suggestion would be to ignore

Until something else comes along I'll continue using the TNE Space Combat
hexes which is Range divided by 30,000, which does match the sensor USD
entries.

>> TNE FF&S Step 9. Crew & Life Support Crew Requirements.
>> Engineering Crew Ce = (Power Plant Peak Output MW x Computer Control
>> Multiplier) / 30

> Yes, that matches the "oldCrew" computation in my spreadsheet.  The Crew
> values in QSDS are based off of the "Crew" computation in the
> spreadsheet, which uses the =IF(Tons<50,Tons/30,1+Tons/100) computation.
> So I think that at some point Marc gave us the new computation for
> engineering crew.

> This has the effect of increasing the required crew for small ships, and
> drastically reducing it for larger ships.

When I've finished the sensors and communicators I'll go back and check the
jump, HEPlaR, and Thrust-Plate Drives crews using the material from the
earlier reply.

>> Electronics Crew Cl = (Number of Installed Communicators + Number of
>> Installed Sensors) x Computer Control Multiplier

> Yes.

>> Maneuvering Cm = 1 if a maneuver drive installed or 1 if a jump drive is
>> installed, or 2 if both a jump drive and maneuver drive is installed

> Yes.  This is covered on QDS page 19, Maneuver Crew.  Starships (ships
> with a jump drive installed) require an astrogator, and any spacecraft
> with a
> maneuver drive requires a Pilot.

Before starting to check the tables out in QSDS 1.5e I did skim through
them, unfortunately I didn't check page 19 with the TNE FF&S crew
requirements when I included them. Thank you for showing me how the QSDS and
TNE FF&S are linked.

>> How about this to explain the crew. The TL-9 meson gun bay has been
>> upgraded to TL-12 standards which changed the crew requirements.:-)

> Sounds good to me.  But it should probably be fixed in errata.

Hopefully, with your help I'll be getting to the weapons section sooner
rather than later, unfortunately I've gotten stuck with the electronics and
need to go back to the jump drive and maneuver drives to check on the crews.

>> To be honest I have not gone back to the jump and maneuver drives to
>> check their crew requirements yet, but I have started checking out the
>> crew
>> requirement for the sensors. Unfortunately, I am having a problem with
>> the Basic crew calculation. [...] Have I missed something?

> No - My error transcribing data.  For #sensors, Basic=2, Improved=2, Small
> Military=4, Medium Military=5.

> Formulae are transcribed below (Excel will not let me paste formulas
> directly):
>  CrewBasic==2*VLOOKUP(TL,CrewSizeMod,2,FALSE)
>  CrewImproved==2*VLOOKUP(TL,CrewSizeMod,2,FALSE)
>  CrewSmallMilitary==4*VLOOKUP(TL,CrewSizeMod,2,FALSE)
>  CrewMediumMilitary==5*VLOOKUP(TL,CrewSizeMod,2,FALSE)

> ---Guy "Wildstar" Garnett
> xxxxxx@prismnet.com

Yippee, my use of Excel's goal seek to check on why I was not matching the
basic crew was right should have been 2, after rounding, instead of 1.  I
have made the change in my spreadsheet.

I have just had a thought about the way I've been posting here. The thought
is that a better way to make searching the archive for this work would be to
do something like this in the subject line Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question
Sensors.

Of course I may be a bit late with the thought.

I have been able to match the TL-9 Improved and Small Military packages
using my spreadsheet. The Basic package I was off in the displacement ton
volume by 0.1 and the crew. With the crew correction my Basic Package
matches with the exception that I get 1 displacement ton instead of 1.1. The
difference is in how we did the math. My approach was to use four, three,
two, and one decimal places then add the radar and HRT values together
rounding the final result. Using four, three, and two decimal places returns
1 displacement ton, while rounding to one decimal place returns 0.9.

Unfortunately, the medium military sensor the only items I'm matching are
the crew and USD.

I'm going to recheck my numbers and if I can't figure out what is causing
the difference I'll be back showing my results.

Have a good one,

Tom Rux

Tom Rux