Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (27 Oct 2014 13:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (27 Oct 2014 16:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2014 17:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (27 Oct 2014 19:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2014 02:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (28 Oct 2014 07:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2014 22:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (29 Oct 2014 00:30 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2014 05:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (04 Nov 2014 23:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (05 Nov 2014 02:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Grimmund (05 Nov 2014 03:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (05 Nov 2014 19:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (05 Nov 2014 21:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (05 Nov 2014 22:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 22:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (05 Nov 2014 23:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kelly St. Clair (06 Nov 2014 01:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (06 Nov 2014 09:00 UTC)
[TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Alex Goodwin (06 Nov 2014 12:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 21:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Bruce Johnson (06 Nov 2014 21:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 22:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Freelance Traveller (07 Nov 2014 01:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (07 Nov 2014 02:56 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (07 Nov 2014 07:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Bruce Johnson (07 Nov 2014 16:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Richard Aiken (08 Nov 2014 01:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Freelance Traveller (06 Nov 2014 13:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 13:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (09 Nov 2014 08:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (09 Nov 2014 18:16 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (10 Nov 2014 02:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 02:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kelly St. Clair (10 Nov 2014 03:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 06:44 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (10 Nov 2014 18:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 22:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 06:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Thomas Jones-Low (10 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (10 Nov 2014 22:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (10 Nov 2014 23:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (05 Nov 2014 19:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 06:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 17:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 20:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Eris Reddoch (05 Nov 2014 21:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 22:19 UTC)

Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Grimmund 05 Nov 2014 03:25 UTC

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . . . unless you are planning to build enough ships to reduce the
>> share of the architect's fee per ship to something manageable.  But
>> that's still a bad financial decisions.
>
>
> Does that still apply if you're a megacorp building the hulls in-house?

As an opinion?  Yes.

Even if you don't have to pay someone the fee, you're still going to
spend a lot of time and money developing the plans.

Unless you are a very small shop, your architecture department is
going to have to bill your production department for all those labor
hours and all that computer modeling time.  Even if the company eats
the cost internally, there is still an expense involved.

> I always assumed the standard design discount represented a megacorp pumping
> out pre-built cookie-cutter hulls and then calling on low-bid subcontractors
> to actually install the working bits of the ship.

I had sort of assumed that the "standard designs" were ships which
were designed by Imperial agencies, and the design was released into
the public domain (which probably caused some conservative Vilani to
have heart attacks at the thought of not collecting royalties...)

>The corp could easily
> stockpile not-as-yet needed hulls (especially in an orbital yard), only
> fitting these out when the current market called for it. Also, a certain
> precentage of these hulls (particularly along the fringes) would be
> "re-manufactured" models; hulls of salvaged or repossessed standard designs,
> with the old working guts removed and replaced with "as new" components.

Unless there is some odd economic downturn, it doesn't make a lot of
sense to sink money into producing things you have no need for and
don't have much of a market for.

The only exception to this is production of niche items (like, say,
tanks, or specialized trucks, or aircraft, or some other specialized
widget that requires a lot of infrastructure to manufacture) where you
need some low level of level of production to justify keep the
production facility open and the staff employed.  Otherwise, the
producer will shut down the line and build something else, and when
you need tanks again, you're going to be out of luck.

Dan

--

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine
kook." -Alan Morgan