--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 4/21/15, David Golden <xxxxxx@pcisys.net> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] FF&S
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 10:10 AM

 On Tue, April 21, 2015
 11:46 am, Bruce Johnson wrote:
 > As
 published, a hash was pretty much made of everything. Almost
 none of
 > the ‘standard’
 ships in the T4 book could be built with the design
 > system published in the book, the
 inconsistencies between QSDS and SSDS

 That seemed to be a consistent theme for
 Traveller, from the LBB days on.
 We'd
 hoped to finally break that streak.  I'd hoped we could
 actually get
 the TML to use FF&S to
 design ships and vehicles for submission.

 What I still can't wrap my
 mind around is that they took the final draft
 in Word format, apparently without reading it,
 dumped it into some print
 layout program,
 and never bothered to error check anything.  A single
 read
 through would have shown the equations
 were scrambled.

 And to
 confirm what others have noted, T4 FF&S was basically a
 port of TNE
 FF&S to the T4
 environment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sometimes things are just too broken to fix...

By the time GDW went belly-up the rules had become a hideously over-complicated mish-mash of everyone & their brother's 'Great Idea to Fix Traveller'(tm).

I had high hopes that once it was back in MM's hands things would be better but once all the talk about even more complication started, I got really, really bummed & became one of the first to 'drift away'.

It's too bad T4 wasn't done the way T5 was but I'm not sure that it would've been possible back then...

=========================================================================================