Oolite Bulletins

Gauntlet wrote:

… well assuming 1TC is 1 cubic meter …

But it isn't, because the size of the standard cargo container is as well known as the size of the ship. It's 9.6m long and about 6m across. I did the calculation for its exact volume here, if you're interested.

Commander McLane wrote:

Gauntlet wrote:

… well assuming 1TC is 1 cubic meter …

But it isn't, because the size of the standard cargo container is as well known as the size of the ship. It's 9.6m long and about 6m across. I did the calculation for its exact volume here, if you're interested.

Not all of the space is for cargo, there's radiation shielding equipment, and life support for slaves. Normal cargo has probably got to be stored in an atmosphere too and kept at an even temperature. All that equipment in each pod has got to reduce the space available in each one.

JazHaz wrote:

Not all of the space is for cargo, there's radiation shielding equipment, and life support for slaves. Normal cargo has probably got to be stored in an atmosphere too and kept at an even temperature. All that equipment in each pod has got to reduce the space available in each one.

Not to mention the inbuilt power supply for all that equipment.. each canister has to be capable of enduring extended periods drifting in space without damage to the contents.

Commander McLane wrote:

Gauntlet wrote:

… well assuming 1TC is 1 cubic meter …

But it isn't, because the size of the standard cargo container is as well known as the size of the ship. It's 9.6m long and about 6m across. I did the calculation for its exact volume here, if you're interested.

Like I said it depends on how you define 1TC. And of course how you define ship sizes too. My old BBC elite manual quoted dimensions in feet (not metres) and cargo in Tonnes. Now if it had quoted Tons that could mean several different things but Tonne is a very specific measurement and is defined by 1 cubic meter of water at standard temp and pressure etc...

Ok thats not to say it can't be something else 1000 years in the future perhaps the volume of 1000kg of Lithium (a little under 2 cubic meters) or simply a standardised container of a given volume named after the archaic but unrelated Tonne.

While I'm at it the old pentagonal box is a really inefficient shape for a container when packing them together, in my Anaconda image above those containers occupy twice the volume of the ship that a comparable number of cubes would.

I don't know where the original dimensions for oolites ships and containers originate, whether they come from BBC elite, one of the others or someone else, but when looking at the meshes I have from BBC elite the cargo container is hugely oversized anyway, I always imagined this to mean your viewscreen artificially magnified those tiny containers so you could find them for scooping

for example An Adder and Cargo container at the same scale from my collection

try squeezing 2 of those bad boys in there

And here rescaled to 1 cubic metre containers with the ship scaled in feet


Anyway I'm not telling anybody anything is or isn't, I'm just saying some stuff about some stuff I've been playing around with in my head

There is clearly a problem with your measurements. The Adder is 30m wide, the cargo container is 9.6m long. Obviously three containers have to fit into the Adder's width, not just one.

I won't have another debate over sizes and scales in Oolite, it's boring because it doesn't get anywhere. At the end of the day one cannot do anything else but shrug the inconsistencies away. However, the sizes of all models are very well defined and available in the DAT files. They all live in the same Ooniverse, so they must be to the same scale. Therefore it makes no sense to interpret the ship measurements as feet, and the container measurements as meters.

Gauntlet wrote:

Like I said it depends on how you define 1TC. And of course how you define ship sizes too. My old BBC elite manual quoted dimensions in feet (not metres) and cargo in Tonnes. Now if it had quoted Tons that could mean several different things but Tonne is a very specific measurement and is defined by 1 cubic meter of water at standard temp and pressure etc...

Ok thats not to say it can't be something else 1000 years in the future perhaps the volume of 1000kg of Lithium (a little under 2 cubic meters) or simply a standardised container of a given volume named after the archaic but unrelated Tonne.

While I'm at it the old pentagonal box is a really inefficient shape for a container when packing them together, in my Anaconda image above those containers occupy twice the volume of the ship that a comparable number of cubes would.

Looking at the old Elite manual, the cargo canisters hold "one Gal Tonne of goods, under variable pressure and temperature conditions". So one could perfectly plausibly claim that a "Gal Tonne" is a completely different standard unit from what we primitive Earthlings call a "tonne". Then again, the kilogram is apparently still a Galcop standard.

The manual also had an artist's impression of an Anaconda's cargo bay, which showed hexagonal cargo canisters. This always seemed a lot more sensible than pentagonal ones, as hexagonal ones would fit together a lot more efficiently (regular pentagons don't tile without leaving gaps, but regular hexagons do). Plus, it's easy to stack hexagonal canisters on top of each other because they have a flat side on top. Plain old cuboid boxes still work better than either of them, but a wire-frame box looks very boring and not futuristic at all

With all that said, the cargo containers aren't exactly Oolite's biggest departure from hard, sensible realism. So long as I can suspend my disbelief and have fun playing, I'm happy.

Commander McLane wrote:

There is clearly a problem with your measurements. The Adder is 30m wide, the cargo container is 9.6m long. Obviously three containers have to fit into the Adder's width, not just one.

I won't have another debate over sizes and scales in Oolite, it's boring because it doesn't get anywhere. At the end of the day one cannot do anything else but shrug the inconsistencies away. However, the sizes of all models are very well defined and available in the DAT files. They all live in the same Ooniverse, so they must be to the same scale. Therefore it makes no sense to interpret the ship measurements as feet, and the container measurements as meters.

The problem with the measurements is that the Adder is 30 feet wide! but thats because its a BBC Elite adder not an oolite adder. And in fairness I was pointing out only that the cargo container in Elite was inconsistently scaled for the ships also.

And in Elite it made perfect sense to use feet for ships and metric measurements for tonnage... it was a perfect reflection of the 1980s when we were all using imperial and metric interchangeably anyway

I'm quite happy to shrug off the inconsistencies, its why i voted for leaving the anaconda alone with her cavernous 750TC capacity, and my Anaconda post was there to show that with a little imagination and flexibility in what cargo means the Anaconda can have its cargo and eat it too

rayner wrote:

The manual also had an artist's impression of an Anaconda's cargo bay, which showed hexagonal cargo canisters. This always seemed a lot more sensible than pentagonal ones, as hexagonal ones would fit together a lot more efficiently (regular pentagons don't tile without leaving gaps, but regular hexagons do).

I have my own explanation for the shape - the stacking gaps that result from pentagonal canisters are required for the equipment that loads and unloads the canisters when in dock...think of a forklift with tines that are designed to grasp the pentagonal canister.

Gauntlet wrote:

And in Elite it made perfect sense to use feet for ships and metric measurements for tonnage... it was a perfect reflection of the 1980s when we were all using imperial and metric interchangeably anyway

Not just in the 1980s. The last time I was in the UK from 2000 to 2002 I saw weights in kilos and distances in yards and miles... which was strange seeing that my home (New Zealand) had gone fully metric in the seventies!

Junction 21 4m
"Four meters?!?" <slams on brakes>

This may be a bit late to give my 2p worth but I would like the Anaconda to remain as it is. As I like the odd humorous mistake that give a little quirk. I also like the idea of having an oversized hauler for the game that can still dock in a main station. And finally I like the idea of retaining tradition. Even though I am not sentimental at all.

I have read through only first page. But I think DaddyHoggy hits end of the nail in here:

DaddyHoggy wrote:

I know the BCC is modern - but I like to think of the Anaconda as cutting edge (in terms of capacity) for it's time and would fail every modern (in Ooniverse terms) Health and Safety check - tiny cabins - few failsafes - paper thin hull (like old single skin Oil Tankers) - minimal shielding on engines - no recreational facilities - small mess area etc...

And I'd like to add relatively small & inefficient engine, which reduces its movement to such a crawl. These in mind, 250t cargo bay would be fine for me. Some upgrades, like bigger & more powerful engine, larger and more comfortable crew accommodations, infirmary, passenger accommodations etc. without any visible changes to outer hull would (should) reduce cargo capacity.

Speaking about it, has Anaconda's cargo capacity been changed from 750t?

Matti wrote:

... has Anaconda's cargo capacity been changed from 750t?

Not as far as I'm aware... it's a quirk that many (including myself) are rather fond of.

If you change it, you'd have to rebalance the ship to keep it from being really horrible.
Cargo capacity past the 100 TC mark gets progressively less "useful" the more that's added, mostly due to buying/selling limitations outside of dubious value cargo contracts.