That method would make it easier to use the same template for all of the Huge ships. Otherwise you have a CR-90 moving farther then a GR-75, because the ship itself is bigger with a longer base. Plus that... if you moved from front to back like normal, the GR-75 would move... Almost a foot with 1 forward.

Yeah, you're going to need a bigger table otherwise.

On the other hand... We'd finally have a case where someone could go though 6 asteroids and only take 1 damage.

I can't wait to see how long it'll take to do a u-turn

I can't wait to see how long it'll take to do a u-turn

About 15 feet...

I can't wait to see how long it'll take to do a u-turn

About 15 feet...

or 6 turns as they look about 30 degrees.

or 6 turns as they look about 30 degrees.

Ok to be serious... It looks like a 2 turn still moves the ship forward about 3/4th of the base... That would be about 6 inches forward. So hmmm if you started at one end of a 3ft table you'd need a good chunk of the table to make a U turn, maybe as much as 2 feet both long and wide.

I think that's a 2 BANK, looking at it. I know people have said "2 turn" a couple of times. In fact I think the caption under the picture in that article says "performs a 2 bank."

The straights should work just fine but I really wonder about the turns. I mean how do you know the angle you end up at if you don't have two points of contact on the template? To me the L shape is saying that when you make your turn you're going to have one point on the long slide of the L and then the other touching a point on the cross leg of the L.

You don't just touch points on the L - you slot it completely into the corner of the L. In the article picture, after the move the front of fthe base is snugged up against the 2 Bank section, while the side of the base is touching along the 1 bank section.

I like the move - it's an interesting solution. I can see the concerns over the table space necessary to make the template lay down, though - you could easily end up moving half the ships on the table if it goes plowing into a big furball.

I think that's a 2 BANK, looking at it.

Most likely is. I was using turn in the generic sense, because it seemd like the Transport can only bank.

Regardless of how much play testing they did and how it moves, I know I'm glad it's 2 "large" bases instead of 1 huge base. It'll make it much easier to transport to my FLGS that way.

I'm going to agree with two bases as opposed to one large one. For the sake of transporting the transport (heh) it'd be a lot more of a hassle to figure out how to take the whole thing in one large piece as opposed to two smaller ones. I think that if it was also on one large base I somehow get the impression it would also be easier to break something small on it, like the connector into the bottom.

As for movement, I'm very excited to give this a go and understand the actual rules for it as opposed to speculation, even if the guesses do look accurate. Now, I'm wondering if I could put Engine Upgrade on this and do a Boost action... :3

<Sifting through the pockets for two pennies...>

I have no beef with the movement template as designed. But as has been hinted at/anticpated, the close proximity of other ships make make for a lot of smaller ships repositioning to yield the room to make the turn.

I do; however, expect the this is one of those areas where an inovative third party gaming supplier (or two) will whip up an alternative solution. Perhaps maybe even one that has a simplified "pivot and slide" function to allow the ship to be slid into position. And/or a template that works from the rear of the vessel. Or simply a closer to "traditional" template that indexes of the corners of the large base. So long as the vessel ends up in the same place as the original template, it's all good.

RogueMorgan

<"Ah, there they are. Two neglected trinkets of wealth for the priviledge to speak."/>

Nice diagram on the previous page.

So it looks like its movement dial will have eight options on it. Although I wonder if it'll have a 0 (stop) option, too.

First, I apologize for the length of this post. I just have little patience for simpletons . . .

And FYI, my definition of simpleton is not someone who is "a little slow", it's people who think that anything they can imagine must be simple to do. Flip a light switch? It's just a simple little on/off thing, right? Wrong. There are many, many things involved in designing everything from the simplest of SPST switches to aircraft carriers, so I get irritated at people who call decisions like this lazy simply because they don't like them.

yeah,
I think so.

My first reaction:

If you really think it's that simple, then I suggest you take a class on manufacturing processes.

Short answer: it's not.

Long answer: It takes a lot of time and energy to create new tooling. Anyone who thinks it's as simple as making a new part in AutoCAD and having a machine carve the negative into a mold cavity is an idiot or a simpleton. It takes a team of people months to come up with a new design, no matter how simple it is. A *cube* would require just as much dedication as a model of the Millennium Falcon, albeit it would make the CAD process simpler.

Let me give you a short, simplified run-down on the process behind making a new plastic part for *any* application:

Design meeting

Preliminary design sketches

Tweaking of said design

Approval process

Testing process

Approval of test results

Finalization of design

Approval of final design

Commission of new tooling

EDM part is carefully sculpted or machined

Approval of EDM part*

EDM part put into EDM machine to create tooling from a block of aluminum or steel

Approval of EDM'ed tooling

Polishing of tooling

Approval of polished tooling

Addition of any text or insignia into tooling (copyrights, direction markers, etc)

Approval of text and insignia

Test-shot is made

Approval of test-shot

First run made

Inspection of first run to see if defects exist

Production begins

*EDM is one way to make the mold, but there are others such as CMC machines. It's still the same amount of time and money, more or less.

Compare that to the process used to make cardboard templates:

Design meeting

Prototype created

Approval of prototype

CAD used to make template

Design approval

Die design commissioned from approved design

Stamp bent using CAD toolpath

Stamp welded to the blank

Stamp sharpened

Test run stamped

Test run approved

First run stamped

First run approved

Production begins

Not only are there fewer steps in creating a cardboard template, but those steps are exponentially cheaper because they require fewer people and the people who create them need not be as skilled because any errors in the resulting part are cheaper to fix. In addition, a LOT more can go wrong in the creation of new tooling for plastic parts. A stamped piece of cardboard is not going to go through shrinking, warping, discoloration, or any of the hundred or so things that can go wrong with an injection-molded plastic part.

Here's a very-much shortened list of things that can potentially fail:

Bad flowpath of the plastic

Not enough draft

Shrinking of part inside the mold

Not enough coolant used to cool the mold between casts

Wrong mix of plastics

Contamination of stock

Ejector pin failure

Plastic not at correct temperature (a HUGELY sensitive thing when it comes to polystyrene and related plastics)

Cool spots in fllowpath

Not enough cooldown time given for parts

Many other things can go wrong. Usually a tooling engineer will handle getting these right, but then that takes a lot of time and money, and if he happens to make a mistake (because the real world is not as predictable as Calculus and Physics would like it to be), he has to go back to the drawing board, find the problem, and propose a solution, which of course takes even more time and money. And this mistake can happen at any point in the design process, from beginning to end. Whole molds have been tossed into the recycle bin after months of planning and testing because of a fatal flaw, though they do try to minimize that.

This is how it works every single day in the plastics industry across the world. Why would it be any different for a game, especially one which is manufactured to high standards like this one?

So again, it's much cheaper and better to design a cardboard template rather than making a new plastic part.

A very well laid out post to open others eyes to what all goes into making simple parts. Though you missed the "iterate, iterate again, go back and iterate. Find out that what you designed isn't working right, iterate again. Fail quality control. Iterate... And then have someone that knows nothing about what you're doing tell you you're doing it wrong and to just hurry up and finish. Present the "just do it" product. Fail quality control. Delay program 6 months. Lose $$. Iterate. Finally get it acceptable. Find out supplier wants more money than he originally quoted. Compromise and sacrifice quality"

Although if you're the designer and the supplier (I don't know if FFG is or not) it does seem to streamline the process a bit since there's less management interfering with the engineering.

A unique base would be much more elegant for both the models looks and the games mechanics.

I see, so you're a game designer then? Please tell us what massively successful games you've marketed. Because clearly you are a much better designer then anyone at FFG if you can tell all that from a single image. You also must understand the ins and out of the manufacturing process involved.

My mistake I forgot to add IMO to everything I post to keep the board trolls at bay!

Opinion has nothing to do with it. You're claiming that they could of done this better or in other ways, so you're a game designer and actually know what you're talking about... Because other wise it's pretty impressive that someone could come to the conclusions you did based on a single image.

But nowhere in my post did I say anything about the designers being lazy or say they tacked on a system as an afterthought.

I know, that's why I said what I did... Because I was calling Panic on the BS he was posting. If you thought I was aiming that at you I apologize didn't mean to at all.My issue isn't with someone saying "Well if they did X it might of been better then Y" because they may or may not be right. Especially when they're talking about a something they actually have in their hands, and not based on a single image.But when someone calls a game designer lazy for doing X, because clearly Y is superior in every way, which is what Panic was doing... based on one image, and with no knowledge of what went into the design, then yes they need to be called on it.

My view: the movement solution is simple but does have obvious flaws (possible imprecision, easily knocked ships, perhaps an easily damaged movement template, most significantly the difficulty there will be positioning it when other ships are in the way). I don't know what other solutions were considered and I don't have a better one, but that doesn't mean this one's perfect, and I can see why Panic... thinks it may be a lazy suboptimal solution. As for FFG's track record - what about the pegs? Bloody awful pieces of kit.

Also, can people stop writing 'of' when they mean 'have'.

Perhaps you should all try to make your posts sound less like personal slights at each other. Panic...'s entitled to his opinion even if he hasn't got a proven track record of developing superior solutions. If that weren't true then the whole internet, hell, the whole of human discourse would have to shut down.

My view: the movement solution is simple but does have obvious flaws (possible imprecision, easily knocked ships, perhaps an easily damaged movement template, most significantly the difficulty there will be positioning it when other ships are in the way). I don't know what other solutions were considered and I don't have a better one, but that doesn't mean this one's perfect, and I can see why Panic... thinks it may be a lazy suboptimal solution. As for FFG's track record - what about the pegs? Bloody awful pieces of kit.

I apologize for the tone of my post. I do get fed up with people who try to tell me industrial design processes, or anything relating to engineering, is *easy*, though. It's a slight against the men and women who work hard to get where they are, as it completely underestimates just how much work is involved in design.

A very well laid out post to open others eyes to what all goes into making simple parts. Though you missed the "iterate, iterate again, go back and iterate. Find out that what you designed isn't working right, iterate again. Fail quality control. Iterate... And then have someone that knows nothing about what you're doing tell you you're doing it wrong and to just hurry up and finish. Present the "just do it" product. Fail quality control. Delay program 6 months. Lose $$. Iterate. Finally get it acceptable. Find out supplier wants more money than he originally quoted. Compromise and sacrifice quality"

Although if you're the designer and the supplier (I don't know if FFG is or not) it does seem to streamline the process a bit since there's less management interfering with the engineering.

Heh, I did mention that it's extremely simplified. But yes, in all likelihood the process is far more complicated than what I outlined. It represents the ideal, and ideals are seldom achieved, if ever.

wow lets take this up a notch and add "Proxy" transport bases.. lol

I don't understand why Panic and anyone else can't say what they think, after all whether this is a success or not depends on wallets like his and mine anyone else interested.

How is it justified to tell someone they can't think for themselves and add their own 2 Cents? If we never question the Powers that Be, how would progress ever be made?

If you want to be upset with someone, be upset with FFG for NOT providing a video on how the Template works. Instead they give us a vary vague picture; so of course now it's left to Speculation...which can encompass both Positives and Negatives. I believe this is intentional on FFG's side; something to talk about til the playing piece comes out...something to keep you distracted from staring at your calendar.

To me, it looks complicated and clunky as well as may end up being kind of annoying. We'll see I guess; and there may be many different ways to make this better. Proceed with caution when saying one way is the only way, and that FFG would never make a mistake.

yeah,

So I have to be a games designer to have an opinion?

But yes I think I could come up with a better more elegant solution than the hook template.

I also think most people would prefer to have a single base, instead of two joined by a cardboard bridge piece.

Panic...

Possibly they couldn't balance such a large ship on a single, central stand and 2 made more sense for carrying the load of the oddly balanced model.. kinda my thought. Those are too unweildy to be on a single stand... or they tried it and figured it was safer with 2 due to the easy tip over risk..

Well gameplaywise each base is a seperate target as far as I can see.

I don't understand why Panic and anyone else can't say what they think, after all whether this is a success or not depends on wallets like his and mine anyone else interested.

How is it justified to tell someone they can't think for themselves and add their own 2 Cents? If we never question the Powers that Be, how would progress ever be made?

They can say whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. By the same token, I'm allowed to point out when what they say turns out to be poorly thought-out and wrong. The root of the problem is that Panic *wasn't* thinking when he said that, or else was proceeding for a false assumption. He made the assumption that it was lazy (an insulting turn of phrase, BTW) to make a cardboard template when, in his opinion, a plastic one would have been better. What he failed to take into consideration however is that plastic parts are more complex than that and that making a whole new mold is a time-consuming, labor-intensive, and expensive process.

There's questioning the PTB, and then there's making unfounded assumptions about how industrial processes work. Panic did the latter, not the former. If he were truly and honestly "questioning the PTB" he would have looked into why they might have done what they did, what possible alternatives they could have used, and made his case based on that. That's what one does when one is questioning someone. What Panic was doing was making baseless assumptions about the motivations of FFG and the process of creating plastic and cardboard pieces (namely, that it is just as easy to do one as it is the other). Those assumptions were called into question, and so far they haven't held up to close examination.

And while we're at it, why is it okay to criticize FFG and not someone who is making unfounded accusations about them?

Guys I posted a diagram of how I believe this will work, here's the link.

http://imgur.com/K2B2Kkw

With the example they provide I think this is pretty on the number. Seems straightforward enough to me anyway. I'm not concerned about it being too difficult to move ships out of the way, you have a ton if options on going straight to avoid overlapping the template with ships, and on turns it's not going to be anymore annoying than the existing templates. It's really even easier since it literally runs over ships that are directly in the way anyway.

"My view: the movement solution is simple but does have obvious flaws (possible imprecision, easily knocked ships, perhaps an easily damaged movement template, most significantly the difficulty there will be positioning it when other ships are in the way). I don't know what other solutions were considered and I don't have a better one, but that doesn't mean this one's perfect, and I can see why Panic... thinks it may be a lazy suboptimal solution. As for FFG's track record - what about the pegs? Bloody awful pieces of kit."

Umm, you just described the problems with the STANDARD system of movement in this game.