 February 3, 2016 - 8:45am | All the discussions between me and Sings-with-Spirits about vehicle specifications really brought home the idea that I wanted to take a look at a couple of things. Sings emphasized the idea that SF is supposed to be "hard science" SF to the greatest extent possible, and I can agree with that. I think the problem that brings up as a side effect though is that the hard science used as a basis is that of the late 70s and early 80s. Lots of the vehicle stats would be considered incredibly advanced by 1980 science, but what about 2016 science? I decided to pick a couple of vehicles as test cases where we already have such vehicles in inventory with the same type of power source. I chose Ground cars and Ground Cycles and did some research. Where applicable, I used standard physics calculators and converted to SF notation. If I leave a blank, I could not find the relevent information to convert. Ground Car Tesla S85D Ground Car Top Speed 417m/t 175m/t Turn Speed - 80m/t Acc 40 m/t 60m/t Dec - 40m/t Range 460km 1000km Pass 1+4 1+4 Cargo 433kg, .9 cubic m 150kg, 1 cubic m Ground Cycle Zero DSR Ground Cycle Top Speed 263m/t 200m/t Turn Speed - 100m/t Acc 37m/t 100m/t Dec - 40m/t Range 290km 1,000km Pass 1 1 Cargo - 20kg, .5 cubic m As you can see, outside of range and some aspects of performance, the centuries advanced Frontier technology is at best close equivalent to, or inferior to 2016 tech. The Zeerust is setting in. Is it time to update? (I know it'll never get published outside our own circles, unfortunately.) Or should we shrug and just let it lie? |
 February 3, 2016 - 4:35pm | FWIW 290km (180 miles) is a wet dream for the Zero. I personally know someone that has the predecessor DS model and for city commutes --- the best range category for those EVs, mind you --- he is lucky to get 80 miles before the low battery light comes on (he says it typically comes on between 65-75 miles), and if he doesn't charge it within the next ten miles he's pushing it down the sidewalk. I will say this much about it: it was a hoot to ride, having peak torque arrive as soon as you apply any throttle.  Also noteworthy, SF vehicle top speeds were somewhat dismal compared to 70s EV technology as well. |
 February 3, 2016 - 6:44pm | I'd say upgrade the top speed and cargo capacity and write an article for the Frontier Explorer. What would be cool is to make several models of each from competing mega-corps and puts some story behind each. -iggy |
February 3, 2016 - 9:14pm | Vehicle Variations Somewhere in this site is an actual list I made of various models (based on that first link). For the life of me I can't find it, but here's a sample I found elsewhere: Streel Kyawaskai XB600R Crossbow mid-sized supersport hovercycle Color: Daytona Green w/White Accel: 120m/turn, Decel: 40m/turn, Turn Speed: 110m/turn, Top/Cruise Speed: 200/70kph 10kg/0.25 cubic meter SP:60 |
February 3, 2016 - 10:17pm | @Shadow Shack, This is sweet stuff. Do you have artwork to put with it. I want to use this in my games. -iggy |
 February 4, 2016 - 6:32am | One thing I would like to see an overhaul on, are generators. That is, they treat generators all the same (per given size), regardless of power-source (wind/hydro turbine, solar cells, thermal-nuclear reaction, etc.). Each system should have their own level of output, requirements needed to stay running, required maintenance and overhauls (cost, frequency, needed skills/level, etc.), and (more over) weight and bulk. Hell, I want an overhaul on ship engines (KH is in such a need of an all-around overhaul, it would be better to just scrap the system in favor of something else)! |
February 4, 2016 - 7:10am | Well, I certainly seem to have gotten people talking...  So if we were to do an upgrade, whose specifications would we use? Manufacturers? Or should be go trolling through fora looking at a ton of user reports, keeping in mind this is just for fun? And what would we do about the vehicle types we don't have current counterparts to? Wow, I'm just realizing how big of a potential can of worms I've opened up. I may start spitballing some ideas along the lines of upgrading part and keeping part. |
February 4, 2016 - 8:10am | Ok, did some "smushing" and some quick figuring. Here's what ground vehicles would look like with an upgrade. I note the real-world counterpart in parenthesis that I chose. In the case of the Transport, I couldn't readily find an EV counterpart that was fully developed, so I chose a comparable, conventionably-fueled one. (Note, acc/dcc data for some types of vehicles (transports/trucks) is almost impossible to find. I couldn't find it in what time I had this morning, so I just cribbed the existing SF data, since figured we wouldn't want vehicles worse performing than what we had currently. Also note that I correct a few numbers to standard SF notation, which rounds apparently to the nearest 5.) Ground Cycle (Zero DSR) Top Speed 265m/t (160kph) Turn Speed 100m/t (60kph) Acc 100m/t Dec 40m/t Range 1,000km Pass 1 (2 w/sidecar) Cargo 20kg, .5 cubic m Ground Car (Tesla S85D) Top Speed 420m/t (250kph) Turn Speed 80m/t (48kph) Acc 60m/t Dec 40m/t Range 1,000km Pass 1+4 Cargo 433kg, 1 cubic m Ground Transport (M977A4) Top Speed 150m/t (90kph) Turn Speed 50m/t (30kph) Acc 40m/t Dec 30m/t Range 1,000km Pass 2 or 2+10 Cargo 10,000kg, 30 cubic m |
February 4, 2016 - 1:33pm | @Shadow Shack, This is sweet stuff. Do you have artwork to put with it.
Thanks. I have some stuff uploaded in the Artwork project here: HoverCycles And something for Chris as he's doing an Explorer revamp: Explorers, Flit Board, & HoverTank |
