6 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

The level of "technical" details Lucasfilm has released on anything, does not rise to the level of "technical specifications" the closest they got is the book on the YT-1300. Real technical specs are dull, what Lucasfilm has put out is marketing brochure level, it does not include a cad, it does not include a nut and bolt hyperdrive/sensor suite/shields break down, it does not include material specification of each and every part including the stresses as a function of temperature the part must be able to withstand, the required degree that which parts must be able to blot which types of radiation, or the conductivity/resistance of the power lines and their insulating shells, it does not include assembly/ trouble shooting/repair instructions. It does not include the chemical make up specification of consumables (e.g. fuels) or the chemical composition and reflectivity/color requirements for the primer/paint on the hulls. And that list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what technical specifications require. Technical specifications for an xwing would be multiple (at least 7 as a lowball estimate) thick books and a dvd for cad. That's not what (most) fans want to read although they might buy it for the dvd with cad designs to turn into an obj file for digital rendering art. And no one wants the 2 meter wide floor to ceiling bookshelf full of books and 20+ DVDs it'd take to provide technical specifications for an ISD. What Lucasfilm puts out is not technical specifications , it's marketing level summary statistics.

I think you are setting the bar way to high on this one. We all know that you are an engineer, but you are allowing your professional definition of technical specs to shape a discussion about a very common style of reference book in science fiction. Of course the the technical specification books we get aren't engineering level. It is objectively ridiculous to believe they would be. It's also ridiculous to dismiss them just because they don't meet your overly high definition of the term technical specifications. They're the closest we have and really all we need to work with in a realm of unobtanium, superenergium, handwavium, and space wizards. Otherwise we could completely dismiss every bit of design you've done as complete fantasy due to not having "real" techinical specifications.

Not having the book is a valid counter argument though.

15 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Lucasfilm can pluck whatever they want from legends, the plucked the cross section of the isd, that doesn't mean anything else came with it.

The level of "technical" details Lucasfilm has released on anything, does not rise to the level of "technical specifications" the closest they got is the book on the YT-1300. Real technical specs are dull, what Lucasfilm has put out is marketing brochure level, it does not include a cad, it does not include a nut and bolt hyperdrive/sensor suite/shields break down, it does not include material specification of each and every part including the stresses as a function of temperature the part must be able to withstand, the required degree that which parts must be able to blot which types of radiation, or the conductivity/resistance of the power lines and their insulating shells, it does not include assembly/ trouble shooting/repair instructions. It does not include the chemical make up specification of consumables (e.g. fuels) or the chemical composition and reflectivity/color requirements for the primer/paint on the hulls. And that list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what technical specifications require. Technical specifications for an xwing would be multiple (at least 7 as a lowball estimate) thick books and a dvd for cad. That's not what (most) fans want to read although they might buy it for the dvd with cad designs to turn into an obj file for digital rendering art. And no one wants the 2 meter wide floor to ceiling bookshelf full of books and 20+ DVDs it'd take to provide technical specifications for an ISD. What Lucasfilm puts out is not technical specifications , it's marketing level summary statistics.

Sorry if I trust the wookieepedia canon pages more than what you claim a book you don't own contains

2) bs. Cargo volume largely determines the size, shape, and weight of the vehicle. Drag is a larger force than weight and more fuel is needed to overcome drag than weight, and the weight of the ships (keyed of volume of cargo) is typically far greater than the weight of its cargo. Weight of cargo is a secondary or tertiary effect (which if overloaded can prevent you from reaching orbit, but you couldn't over load it without sufficient volume to carry that much cargo)

3) the rules are self consistent, and you haven't established that RAW isn't faithful to canon material, not providing the information you want does not mean it contradicts the information that you want, it is largely a non statement about the canon information you want.

The rules are not self consistent at all. Not even close. If they were, then there wouldn't be such huge discrepancies with these ships' cargo capacities compared to one another and their official technical specifications. You wouldn't have one ship with an Encumbrance 165% its capacity in tons, another with a cargo capacity 1000% its capacity in tons, another 36% , its capacity in tons, etc.

On 10/9/2019 at 1:41 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

The rules are not self consistent at all. Not even close. If they were, then there wouldn't be such huge discrepancies with these ships' cargo capacities compared to one another and their official technical specifications. You wouldn't have one ship with an Encumbrance 165% its capacity in tons, another with a cargo capacity 1000% its capacity in tons, another 36% , its capacity in tons, etc.

The irr-3f cargo is non canon (the officially discarded legends crap) which means you don't get to use the 1000%, the 36% is not the cr90 or isd (even if using legends cargo) or the yv-929 so I'm guessing it's also an officially discarded non canon number, which leaves a single point of comparison the YT-1300 at 165%. So even if you're method of analysis wasn't fundamentally flawed (I'll get to that in a minute), you have a single point of comparison which doesn't allow you to fit a line much less a curve.

But for an analogy let's say the cargo capacity of the different ships are pieces of fruit. What prior editions of the game have published is the weight of the fruit, what ffg publishes is the surface area (what you can get to easily). Those are completely different measurements that can not be directly compared. If we ASSUMED that all fruit had equal density, rho, and were perfect spheres then the ratio of weight to surface area would be rho×radius/3, so right off the back, for the simplest possible case it's a nonlinear transform A=4×pi×(3×W/(4×pi×rho))^(2/3). You're assumption of linear conversion is fundamentally bogus even for the simplest case.

Moreover not all fruit are perfect spheres, naval oranges are pretty close to spheres but what happens when you compare an orange to a star fruit

of the equal volume (again assuming equal densities)? The star fruit has a much greater surface area than the orange of equal volume (which under the ASSUMPTION of equal density means equal weight). The point is shape/geometry/layout can have a huge effect on the amount of cargo that can be easily accessed while in flight (which is the raw definition of the listed encumbrance for ships).

Ffg wrote the definition of the listed encumbrance in a way that gives them significant freedom to do what seems right to them, without being able to be contradicted because there isn't sufficient technical information available to contradict them because what Lucasfilm puts out is marketing level summary statistics not the detailed technical specifications you would to attempt to contradict ffg stats.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:41 AM, Ahrimon said:

I think you are setting the bar way to high on this one. We all know that you are an engineer, but you are allowing your professional definition of technical specs to shape a discussion about a very common style of reference book in science fiction. Of course the the technical specification books we get aren't engineering level. It is objectively ridiculous to believe they would be. It's also ridiculous to dismiss them just because they don't meet your overly high definition of the term technical specifications. They're the closest we have and really all we need to work with in a realm of unobtanium, superenergium, handwavium, and space wizards. Otherwise we could completely dismiss every bit of design you've done as complete fantasy due to not having "real" techinical specifications.

Not having the book is a valid counter argument though.

1) the point of that was the detailed technical information needed to even attempt to contradict ffg stats just does not exist

2) of course the nubian design collective rule set is fiction, but it is science fiction in the sense of being a geometrically consistent math based system that reproduces very close matches to official game stats.

The IR-3F, itself is a Legends ship to begin with . It doesn't appear in canon anywhere. Ergo, the existing technical specs are still valid given it's not a canon ship. As for the CR-90 and ISD, those are canon specs. Like it or not. So, yes, it does exist and yes, it does contradict FFG's stats. Deal with it.

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The IR-3F, itself is a Legends ship to begin with . It doesn't appear in canon anywhere. Ergo, the existing technical specs are still valid given it's not a canon ship. As for the CR-90 and ISD, those are canon specs. Like it or not. So, yes, it does exist and yes, it does contradict FFG's stats. Deal with it.

Since you didn't attempt to contradict any of my other points from that post, I'll take your non contestion as concession.

Regarding the bit you contested.

The ir-3f got wiped clean/null&void with the canon reset, so when ffg reintroduced it they got to do whatever they wanted with it subject with Lucasfilm approval. The new stats (including a larger crew less consumables) got Disney era Lucasfilm's stamp of approval... so Lucasfilm has already officially said that you're wrong deal with it .

You've also provided zero evidence that the cr90 and isd have canon cargo capacity, wookieepedia indicates they don't, given your dismal track record on presenting true information (even information that you have current access to), I'm going to trust wookieepedia until I have evidence to the contrary. However neither of the other 2 percentages you listed match what the legends wookieepedia pages list for cargo (which you claim is still valid) for either the cr90 or isd, so if you intended to quote percentages for the cr-90 and isd then you are having serious trouble with simple division and/or reading from their legends wookieepedia pages.

Moreover, even if canon cargo in tons is listed for the cr-90 and isd it wouldn't matter because the detailed technical specifications (read as cad files) needed to calculate the cargo hold "surface area" (easily accessible cargo from the side(s) facing the cargo bays doors) doesn't exist for any star wars ship to my knowledge (closest would be the YT-1300) , ergo you don't have the information needed to even attempt to contradict ffg ship listed encumbrances.

On 10/8/2019 at 11:33 PM, EliasWindrider said:

Lucasfilm can pluck whatever they want from legends, the plucked the cross section of the isd, that doesn't mean anything else came with it.

The level of "technical" details Lucasfilm has released on anything, does not rise to the level of "technical specifications" the closest they got is the book on the YT-1300. Real technical specs are dull, what Lucasfilm has put out is marketing brochure level, it does not include a cad, it does not include a nut and bolt hyperdrive/sensor suite/shields break down, it does not include material specification of each and every part including the stresses as a function of temperature the part must be able to withstand, the required degree that which parts must be able to blot which types of radiation, or the conductivity/resistance of the power lines and their insulating shells, it does not include assembly/ trouble shooting/repair instructions. It does not include the chemical make up specification of consumables (e.g. fuels) or the chemical composition and reflectivity/color requirements for the primer/paint on the hulls. And that list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what technical specifications require. Technical specifications for an xwing would be multiple (at least 7 as a lowball estimate) thick books and a dvd for cad. That's not what (most) fans want to read although they might buy it for the dvd with cad designs to turn into an obj file for digital rendering art. And no one wants the 2 meter wide floor to ceiling bookshelf full of books and 20+ DVDs it'd take to provide technical specifications for an ISD. What Lucasfilm puts out is not technical specifications , it's marketing level summary statistics.

Sorry if I trust the wookieepedia canon pages more than what you claim a book you don't own contains

2) bs. Cargo volume largely determines the size, shape, and weight of the vehicle. Drag is a larger force than weight and more fuel is needed to overcome drag than weight, and the weight of the ships (keyed of volume of cargo) is typically far greater than the weight of its cargo. Weight of cargo is a secondary or tertiary effect (which if overloaded can prevent you from reaching orbit, but you couldn't over load it without sufficient volume to carry that much cargo)

3) the rules are self consistent, and you haven't established that RAW isn't faithful to canon material, not providing the information you want does not mean it contradicts the information that you want, it is largely a non statement about the canon information you want.

YOu cant even get the Janes guide level stuff for anything and that it just a single big book for a bunch of ships.

Now, I don't have a source for this (other than Wookieepedia) but looking into other stuff, I found the Ghtroc 720, and it had these stats: "The Ghtroc 720 was 38 meters long and could carry 135 metric tons of cargo in its two 55 cubic meter main holds."

There. That is a proper listing for how much stuff you can fit in it. A weight and the space in which that weight can be held. If a ship had a cargo capacity of 3,000,000 metric tons, but a cargo space of 2 cubic meters, you would probably have an encumbrance capacity of 10 or so. If you had a cargo capacity of 3 metric tons, but a cargo space of 1,000 cubic meters, you could fit a whole lot more stuff, but you would be limited by the weight as to how much you could carry. Even these 2 stats don't tell you everything (though they do tell you a lot) because it doesn't give you the dimensions of the cargo hold. If the cargo hold is 4 inches wide, 1 meter tall, and 50 meters long, you aren't going to be able to hold a shipping crate even though the total space in the cargo hold (5 cubic meters) would be able to hold the weight and the size (1 cubic meter) of the crate.

On 10/14/2019 at 12:49 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Now, I don't have a source for this (other than Wookieepedia) but looking into other stuff, I found the Ghtroc 720, and it had these stats: "The Ghtroc 720 was 38 meters long and could carry 135 metric tons of cargo in its two 55 cubic meter main holds."

There. That is a proper listing for how much stuff you can fit in it. A weight and the space in which that weight can be held. If a ship had a cargo capacity of 3,000,000 metric tons, but a cargo space of 2 cubic meters, you would probably have an encumbrance capacity of 10 or so. If you had a cargo capacity of 3 metric tons, but a cargo space of 1,000 cubic meters, you could fit a whole lot more stuff, but you would be limited by the weight as to how much you could carry. Even these 2 stats don't tell you everything (though they do tell you a lot) because it doesn't give you the dimensions of the cargo hold. If the cargo hold is 4 inches wide, 1 meter tall, and 50 meters long, you aren't going to be able to hold a shipping crate even though the total space in the cargo hold (5 cubic meters) would be able to hold the weight and the size (1 cubic meter) of the crate.

Well, a ship with a cargo capacity of 3,000,000 metric tons is not going to only have a volume of only 2 cubic meters. But that's besides the point. A ship with that large of a cargo capacity would have an comparably larger volume of space as well. Likewise, a ship with a small cargo capacity in weight will also have a small capacity in volume.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, a ship with a cargo capacity of 3,000,000 metric tons is not going to only have a volume of only 2 cubic meters. But that's besides the point. A ship with that large of a cargo capacity would have an comparably larger volume of space as well. Likewise, a ship with a small cargo capacity in weight will also have a small capacity in volume.

It's hyperbole. You don't have to be so pedantic. I used dramatic numbers to make a point.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, a ship with a cargo capacity of 3,000,000 metric tons is not going to only have a volume of only 2 cubic meters. But that's besides the point. A ship with that large of a cargo capacity would have an comparably larger volume of space as well. Likewise, a ship with a small cargo capacity in weight will also have a small capacity in volume.

Volume is not measured is tons, weight is not measured in cubic meters. An idiot starship designer (the same one who in your insane example would build a ship the size of the executor or death star with zero cargo capacity) "could" design a ship with the thrust needed to get 3M tons into orbit but only 2 cubic meters to store it in. This is an obviously ridiculous hyperbole, because no sane starship company *would* build it. But there is a sane range of cargo densities (density=mass/volume, weight=mass*gravitational acceleration, and humans can tolerate rather narrow range of gravitational acceleration maybe a factor of 2 down [limited by what's needed to hold an atmosphere] and a factor of 3 up, I personally lose color vision at 2 as and pass out around 2.4 or 2.5 but I have/had low blood pressure, it's not as low as it used to be, suffice it to say about a factor of 6 explain the effect of gravity, but the range of cargo densities is on top of that)

On 10/16/2019 at 12:10 AM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It's hyperbole. You don't have to be so pedantic. I used dramatic numbers to make a point.

Tramp has a steep learning curve. You'll get used to it.

5 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Tramp has a steep learning curve. You'll get used to it.

Is vertical a curve?

3 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Is vertical a curve?

It is a curve but it's not an invertible function (it's not one to one).