 October 29, 2007 - 10:08am | My understanding is that it takes off and lands vertically, like the Elenaor Moraes. Like the Moraes, an AS can take off and land from any open field if no starport facilities exist. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 October 29, 2007 - 10:24am | The Osprey picture in White Light was an artist error. Here's what StarQuestions said about it: In the Knight Hawks rules, the decks
of a starship are arranged perpendicular to the ship's main axis so that the
ship's nose is .up.. This provides for a sense of gravity for the crew when the
vessel is accelerating through sect internal gravity when the ship is on a
planet's surface? (Note: see illustration of the Osprey's orientation on the .Warriors
of White Light. module, which indicates that the interior of the ship is lying
on its side.) However, I prefer that size 3 ships have the option because of my beliefs about the potential to control gravity.The illustration in question is not quite accurate. Ships capable of landing on planets (such as shuttles, system ships of hull size 5 or less, assault scouts, and other scout-class starships) always land nose up so that the interior of the ship is oriented normally. Larger ships cannot land on planets, so they would have no orientation problems. The orientation of a ship does not matter when it is docked at a space station, since docked ships would be subject to the same artificial gravity as the docking bay of the space station. |
 October 29, 2007 - 11:25am | I just pretended that the Osprey picture in White Light shows the interior of a space station docking bay with very low gravity. In that case the Osprey would just be resting lightly up against the side of the bay. Of course, the bay would have to be pressurized for the crew to remove spacesuit helmets. On planets, I normally land assault scouts vertically. |
 October 30, 2007 - 1:54am | Actually the White Light interior shot is feasible for a space station. However, the hint that there is gravity (as depicted by the crew on the deck in the foreground not floating around aimlessly) may say otherwise. Still, it could land as such, even in an atmosphere. Maneuvering within the ship poised as such would be seriously hampered though. Zero G (or event he 0.05-0.1G) of an orbital station hub wouldn't be an issue for interior movement...much like the Gullwind in Dramune Run: just an ever slight tug against one wall would be noticed. There's another shot somewhere of a scout landed with dralasites exiting via the nose gear, I wish I could remember where I saw that. |
October 30, 2007 - 8:08pm | Check this out: Images of the ship here. "The bridge is designed for operation in both vertical (star drive) and horizontal (atmospheric) flight. All crew members and passengers must be on the bridge while the ship maneuvers in an atmosphere." Bill and I were thinking that the bridge is gyroscopic, riding on some kind of frame that enables it to tilt thus allowing vertical and horizontal flight. |
October 30, 2007 - 8:18pm | Actually the White Light interior shot is feasible for a space station. However, the hint that there is gravity (as depicted by the crew on the deck in the foreground not floating around aimlessly) may say otherwise. Still, it could land as such, even in an atmosphere. Maneuvering within the ship poised as such would be seriously hampered though. Zero G (or event he 0.05-0.1G) of an orbital station hub wouldn't be an issue for interior movement...much like the Gullwind in Dramune Run: just an ever slight tug against one wall would be noticed. Since the image was in error to begin with, it can't be depended on for information regarding assault scouts OR space stations as depicted in KH.There's another shot somewhere of a scout landed with dralasites exiting via the nose gear, I wish I could remember where I saw that. |
October 30, 2007 - 8:37pm | Perhaps the Osprey has the same gyroscopic bridge the Moraes has. In fact I imagine (based on the survey jetcopter robot and jetcoptors in general) the Ospery has landing thruster mounted forward that before they land, the nose is slightly higher than the horizontal plane, the thrusters fire and the Opsrey gently touches down. Someone mentioned Harrier technology before...but the Osprey engines don't rotate. |
October 31, 2007 - 4:31pm | Someone mentioned Harrier technology before...but the Osprey engines don't rotate. That was me in the Anti Gravity thread. |
October 31, 2007 - 11:50am | Okay, found the other shot. It's on p.13 of the SF/KH:4 "War Machine" module. It was argued at SF.org forums that the RCS thrusters could rotate a la Harrier jet nozzles to allow for such landings. Personally I don't know how feasible that would really be, but I still have no issues with an assault scout landing in either method, as long as the crew realizes the difficulties involved with the deck arrangements in an "airplane" landing. There is certainly no constraint about having the rotating gimble control sections on a bridge for dual purpose use like this, as the Eleanor Moraes was designed. I have deckplans for a HS:4 craft as such, the Akyna light freighter, which can be seen here: http://gullwind.20m.com/photo3.html |
 October 31, 2007 - 12:28pm | Actually the White Light interior shot is feasible for a space station. However, the hint that there is gravity (as depicted by the crew on the deck in the foreground not floating around aimlessly) may say otherwise. Still, it could land as such, even in an atmosphere. Maneuvering within the ship poised as such would be seriously hampered though. Zero G (or event he 0.05-0.1G) of an orbital station hub wouldn't be an issue for interior movement...much like the Gullwind in Dramune Run: just an ever slight tug against one wall would be noticed. There's another shot somewhere of a scout landed with dralasites exiting via the nose gear, I wish I could remember where I saw that. You saw that in The War Machine. Good pic of a landed assault scout on Snowball being attacked by Sathar robot. |
October 31, 2007 - 1:28pm | Yep, just found it a while ago (see above post). Dang it if I didn't go through all my stuff several times and missed it each time LOL |
October 31, 2007 - 3:22pm | Okay, found the other shot. It's on p.13 of the SF/KH:4 "War Machine" module. It's also interesting to note the assault scout nose is faced *away* from the hill/mountain behind it, possibly indicating a harrier type landing..It clearly shows an assault scout (possibly the Osprey once again?) landed on a piece of earthly terrain in much the same manner as the interior art for Warriors of White Light, with a crew member exiting the craft via a ladder from the nose cone. thoughts?  |
October 31, 2007 - 4:25pm | Yeah I was going to comment on that as well...but figured my post was long enough and someone else might catch it too LOL It's as if the ship hovered/spun around before setting down. Or if you really want to get offbeat, it "backed in". And note the robot is attacking the ship (something that won't be returning fire or posing a threat), not the crew (something that will be returning fire and posing a threat LOL) |
October 31, 2007 - 7:49pm | Vectored thrust (i.e., AV-8 Harriers) isn't really an option since the assault scout engines are not along the main axis of starship mass. I hate to say it, though, but the Knight Hawks system itself is to blame. Too many inconsistancies... . For example, why do large starships have to have 6-8 engines to "maybe" have and ADF/MR of 1 or 2, but even if they only had one engine they'd have an ADF/MR of 1. In that case, heavy cruisers should only have one engine and save money. Or the whole jump explanation ... that explanation changed the 1 day per light year rule of Alpha Dawn (*my own preference, though, is to make the length of time longer ... several days per light year, it spreads the worlds out a bit more -- but that is harder to explain why it is longer with the current jump rationale*) |
November 2, 2007 - 7:19pm | That picture could be showing the surface of a low gravity planetoid (tiny moon or asteroid). In the low gravity environment, the assault scout's small maneuver jets could provide enough thrust for takeoff and landing in ANY orientation. The spacesuits worn by the characters seem to hint that this is not a full size planet, although the hot gas rising from the engines must mean it has a thin atmosphere at minimum. There must be times that you would want to land your scout ship on an asteroid or small moon. In those cases, a horizontal touchdown might be more stable (less wobbly if the ground under your landing gear is uneven or prone to shifting like snow or gravel). |
 November 3, 2007 - 1:41am | The ridgeline in the distance would have zero bearing on how it landed at all. Can name hundreds of airports and military bases i have landed in with a ridgeline far closer then that. The only way a vessel of that design landed on a planet with .98 gravity (listed in adventure its from) is with gimbaled engine nacelles just like that epitomey of procurement stupidity the Osprey tilt rotor. The picture show zero evidence of any landing short of anti-gravity. The snow pack around the gears, the lack of any snow thrust dispersion, the lack of any other engines cooling down besides the two outwing atomics, shows all evidence of an easy touchdown, but theres no indication anywhere just how the hades it accomplished that goal beyond anti-gravity or some deity having miracled it there. Snow can't be that deep considering they just meteored down to the surface to avoid Sathar entanglements, so she's going to be a bit warm still. But don't consider most of the pictures as evidence reference material anyways, they were artists not aeronautical engineers. |
November 3, 2007 - 2:51am | I hate to say it, though, but the Knight Hawks system itself is to blame. Too many inconsistancies... . For example, why do large starships have to have 6-8 engines to "maybe" have and ADF/MR of 1 or 2, but even if they only had one engine they'd have an ADF/MR of 1. In that case, heavy cruisers should only have one engine and save money. C'mon, do you honestly believe that the $400 screwdriver is solely an American government thing? The only way a vessel of that design landed on a planet with .98 gravity (listed in adventure its from) is with gimbaled engine nacelles just like that epitomey of procurement stupidity the Osprey tilt rotor. Just to dispel any confusion...the Osprey referenced here is not the CMS Osprey assault scout. Wolfe is referring to that aircraft from the opening scene of the Transformers movie:   But don't consider most of the pictures as evidence reference material anyways, they were artists not aeronautical engineers. Hey, don't blame the artists. Someone TOLD them to depict it as such LOL |
 November 3, 2007 - 3:26am | When I played KH in the past, I would have it so that ships capable of trans-atmospheric fight had two axises. The primary axis was called the "tower" axis and was used in space in the typical KH style. The secondary axis was called the "cradle" axis and was used when the ship is on a planet's surface and is laying on its side. This gives the ship's interior a strange duality, as it effectively has two floors. Such features have tilting workstations (like on the Slave I) and elevator shafts that double as long corridors (the elevator folds down and slides in the bottom of the shaft). As cool the idea was, I have hard time making maps for such ships, so gave up on the idea and so I have all the ships land on their bottoms. |
November 3, 2007 - 6:23am | Hey, don't blame the artists. Someone TOLD them to depict it as such LOL Actually, no. Being an artist, I can tell you from experience that someone, probably a third-party employee or company director likely told the artist "show this type of spaceship landed in the snowy region of a planet", with thus no explanation of how the ship lands. |
November 3, 2007 - 6:26am | When I played KH in the past, I would have it so that ships capable of trans-atmospheric fight had two axises. The primary axis was called the "tower" axis and was used in space in the typical KH style. The secondary axis was called the "cradle" axis and was used when the ship is on a planet's surface and is laying on its side. This gives the ship's interior a strange duality, as it effectively has two floors. Such features have tilting workstations (like on the Slave I) and elevator shafts that double as long corridors (the elevator folds down and slides in the bottom of the shaft). One artist, I don't remember who, created images of just such a thing on his own time. They're very well done designs. I don't subscribe to the thought, but he definitely made it feasible.As cool the idea was, I have hard time making maps for such ships, so gave up on the idea and so I have all the ships land on their bottoms. |
November 3, 2007 - 7:28am | "C'mon, do you honestly believe that the $400 screwdriver is solely an American government thing?" Merely pointing out that the ship design mechanics of KH have some issues that need to be resolved. For example, why would HS 16-18 ships require 6 engines, HS 20 ships require 8, but a HS 19 ship only needs 4? There seem to be no reason for some of these rules and that lack of consistancy throughout creates a number of these problems. |
November 3, 2007 - 7:57am | "C'mon, do you honestly believe that the $400 screwdriver is solely an American government thing?" If you could put the page number of these errors from KH in the AER forum, I'd appreciate it. We could provide some of these fixes. I don't want to make mechanics fixes for that project, but I am up to making error fixes such as that to improve the consistency of the rules.Merely pointing out that the ship design mechanics of KH have some issues that need to be resolved. For example, why would HS 16-18 ships require 6 engines, HS 20 ships require 8, but a HS 19 ship only needs 4? There seem to be no reason for some of these rules and that lack of consistancy throughout creates a number of these problems. |
 November 3, 2007 - 8:06am | "C'mon, do you honestly believe that the $400 screwdriver is solely an American government thing?" Merely pointing out that the ship design mechanics of KH have some issues that need to be resolved. For example, why would HS 16-18 ships require 6 engines, HS 20 ships require 8, but a HS 19 ship only needs 4? There seem to be no reason for some of these rules and that lack of consistancy throughout creates a number of these problems. That is one of the many reaseon SF didn't make it. And, this is a rewrite of the originals. However, there are better formulas and explinations to the how and why that does explain everything to an extent that it all makes sense. Subjects such as: why are the ships only in this configuration? how does sf ftl work? the engine setups have issues. how does the econmy work? how come i can't have lasers on my fighter? can I soup up my engines to go faster in normal space? how come it takes so long to go from point Prenglar to Cassidine? and more errors and cleanups that this game needed to be playable. Most game masters just use AD to avoid these problems altogether, and it is a shame. I find it very interesting watching and listening to my players plan their next upgrade/redesign of a piece of equipment. Be it a ship or a hover cycle. There are some very interesting ideas that we came up with. Our game has been going on almost constantly for over 20 years. Now you know. |
November 3, 2007 - 8:15am | I hate to say it, though, but the Knight Hawks system itself is to blame. Too many inconsistancies... . For example, why do large starships have to have 6-8 engines to "maybe" have and ADF/MR of 1 or 2, but even if they only had one engine they'd have an ADF/MR of 1. In that case, heavy cruisers should only have one engine and save money. C'mon, do you honestly believe that the $400 screwdriver is solely an American government thing? The only way a vessel of that design landed on a planet with .98 gravity (listed in adventure its from) is with gimbaled engine nacelles just like that epitomey of procurement stupidity the Osprey tilt rotor. Just to dispel any confusion...the Osprey referenced here is not the CMS Osprey assault scout. Wolfe is referring to that aircraft from the opening scene of the Transformers movie: |
November 3, 2007 - 1:31pm | One artist, I don't remember who, created images of just such a thing on his own time. They're very well done designs. I don't subscribe to the thought, but he definitely made it feasible. I remember seeing that at the SForg forum. I think it was some Anim8or stuff IIRC As for the artwork thing, that's about what I was getting at. Someone somewhere tells the artist what they need without divulging the full details. Merely pointing out that the ship design mechanics of KH have some issues that need to be resolved. For example, why would HS 16-18 ships require 6 engines, HS 20 ships require 8, but a HS 19 ship only needs 4? There seem to be no reason for some of these rules and that lack of consistancy throughout creates a number of these problems. True. I was just tossing out some "No-Prize" humor. I actually have a revision of the design mechanics as far as drives go. I'll have to make another submission to the Wiki section (making a list of things to do on my days off LOL) |
November 7, 2007 - 3:44pm | Merely pointing out that the ship design mechanics of KH have some issues that need to be resolved. For example, why would HS 16-18 ships require 6 engines, HS 20 ships require 8, but a HS 19 ship only needs 4? There seem to be no reason for some of these rules and that lack of consistancy throughout creates a number of these problems. My revised specification chart is up. Refer to: Hull Specification Chart. |
 November 18, 2007 - 5:57am | If you want an AS that can work under both conditions what you need to do is design all cabins at a set size. No bigger than 2x2x2 meters, you might be able to stretch one of it's dimensions but as long as it's 2 meters tall and 2 meters wide it should work either way. I've figured this from the RPG Jovian Chronicles, where some ships have rotating sections and the cabins have this set up for both under thrust and under rotation conditions. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
