Hello Guy Garnett,

Thank you for the effort you put into creating the QSDS and for being
willing to answer my questions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Wildstar
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 9:21 AM
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Subject: Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question

Tom,

> This is Guy Garnett, I did the original design for T4 QSDS.  I'll do my
> best to answer your questions.  One caveat: QSDS for T4 was was done quite
> a
> while ago.  While I still have most of the files I used to put it
> together, I didn't keep detailed notes about the decisions.  So the
> following is my best
> recollection, supported by the files and spreadsheets that I have.

I am aware that the QSDS, SSDS, Vehicle design, and T4 FF&S were put
together at least eighteen years ago so the odds of remembering all the
details are pretty slim. Any help I can get is more than I have been able to
figure out on my own.

>> Q: How was the Standard Hull Configurations Armor USD factor determined?
>> I’ve tested the standard hull configurations table using TNE FF&S Mk 1
>> Mod 0 with my results at worst being plus or minus 0.5 from those in the
>> table. With the exception of the Armor  values. Per TNE FF&S the minimum
>> armor value is 10 x the maximum acceleration in Gs a vessel can pull.

> The hulls were designed using TNE FF&S and try to reflect suitable hulls
> for each of the "standard" Traveller starships.  All hulls were built at
> TL-10
> out of CrystalIron and include extended life support, gravitational
> compensation, basic access to the interior (airlocks and hatches),
> controls, fuel
> scoops, and CG Lifters.

I got really lucky in my conclusion that the standard hulls where of TL-10
crystaliron construction and that everything but armor matched up.

> The FF&S armor value was set based on the intended role.  For examples,
> the 400-ton airframe cylinder is intended for a Fat Trader, and has FF&S
> armor of 10 (the minimum for a 1G hull); on the other hand, the 800-ton
> un-streamlined sphere is intended for use in a Broadsword-class mercenary
> cruiser, and has extra armor (FF&S armor value 200).

My Armor value number for the Cylinder A 400-displacement ton using TNE FF&S
matched the one listed above, but did not match the listed value in the
table. I did check the SSDS and T4 FF&S.

> I suspect that your confusion comes from the fact that the T4 armor values
> aren't the same as FF&S armor values.  The following table should help
> make sense of things:
> T4 Armor    FF&S Armor
> 0                 0 to 19
> 10             20 to 39
> 20             40 to 79
> 30             80 to 119
> 40           120 to 159
> 50           160 to 199
> 60           200 to 249

Yes, the TNE FF&S to T4 Conversion Table does clear up my confusion since I
can see the progression, which I near came close to figuring out on my own.

>> Q: My testing using TNE FF&S has matched the numbers for the Jump Drive,
>> HEPlaR Drive, Thrust Plate Drive, Standard Civilian Controls, and
>> Standard Military Controls.

> Excellent!  :-)

To date this is my best bit of matching I've gotten on any design system
which is a good feeling.

>> Q: The TL 9 Basic Sensor system I’m a bit off on the Volume in
>> displacement tons and cost. My Volume calculations for cubic meters add
>> up to 14
>> m^3, however when I round the radar processor and antenna to the first
>> decimal place my number matches the one on the Standard Sensor table.
>> The cost I get is 13.8 versus 13.5 which I thinks is due to the radar’s
>> antenna cost not being included. The cost requirement for the radar is
>> part of
>> the Consolidated TNE Errata.

> I'm pretty sure that I didn't have access to all of the errata when T4
> QSDS was being done - so really, I'm the one who is a bit off. Your
> figures look
> correct.

To be honest I almost forgot to include the TNE FF&S errata in the design
process which is what I guessed happened when the table was put together.
Not including the cost errata my cost matched. Good to know that my
calculations aren't to badly off which means another table item that is good
enough as is for government work.

>> Q: On the Standard Sensor Systems table the USD column has the following
>> entry: TL 9 Basic Sensor System USD A0 P2 J0[...] Have I made the right
>>  >> conclusion on the active and passive bits of data?

> I think so.  This is one area where I don't have a lot of information,
> since it looks like the data in the tables was just entered directly.  I
> probably
> quickly added up data from FF&S and entered it, without bothering to make
> a design formula.  Similarly the USD values are just entered in the table
> as
> a text string, not computed.

> However, I do have some notes that say:
> Active/Passive Sensors: Use short range (in cbt, modified by TL difference
> attacker/defender)
> Stealth/EMM/ECM: Use short range (in cbt, modified by TL difference
> attacker/defender)

TNE FF&S Chapter 5. B doesn't, at least that I've found, does not calculate
or a layout the USD like the QSDS. The dividing the sensor range by 30,000
was drawn from the combat rating rules in TNE FF&S Book 3: Weaponry.

>> 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 for military sensor systems - civilian
> sensor
> systems don't include jammers.

My guesses that the jammers matched the radar or AEM array installed and
their ranges divided by 30,000 are on the mark, if not my math. The testing
I have done does agree that the civilian sensor suite does not included
jammers, while the military, with the exception of the TL 10 small military
sensor suite, do have jammers.

> That 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 small
> military
> sensors include 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.

I'm going to rework my sensor spreadsheet and try verifying the table since
my current one is a mess and my numbers are following my usual pattern of
being really far off the ones in the table.

One item I have not tried to figure out is the Crew requirement for the jump
drive, maneuver drives, or the sensors. How where the crew requirements
calculated for  the jump drive, maneuver drives, sensors, communicators, bay
weapons, meson screens, and power plants?

Again thank you for the help,

Tom Rux