High Poly Venice Model

you dont, because you want all the ships to not only fit a standard configuration, but you also want there to be no 'weak spots'. Modular = efficent but with weak spots.

Jwk...comander of =HEMP HUNGRY MONKEY=
www.i-war2.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=310

I'd have to disagree, Jwk. (Sorry, I'm doing this a lot lately. It's not intentional.) Modular does not always mean weaker. Remember, the Venice is a freighter... not a warship. She does not need the shielding a cruiser does. Her exposed fuel tanks and capsule drive prove she has no place in a battle.

I'm not saying she should employ no armor at all. She has to carry micrometeorite and radiation shielding. Following real-world patterns leads me to believe she's well protected against minor impacts (like bumping into cargo pods (read: Jafs)) in the fashion today's tractor-trailers are... in other words; she uses curved surfaces and crumple zones to deflect and minimize forces of impact. A one-piece, ship-hugging shield would only transmit the impact to the rest of the vehicile.

Assuming the same construction methods used today (or very close) are used in I-War ship construction, I'd guess modular components were used greatly. Even with the hightened tech-levels, space is still a very hazzardous place to build things. Suits get punctured, faceplates cracked. Building a ship in a pressurized environment (but with micro-gravity) would be my guess on how it would be done. Of course, robotics would play a much greater role than in today's construction.

The entire ship is very, very modular. She can easily be broken up into four distinct parts: The cap-drive cylinder, the cargo deck, the engine section, and the cab.

Bolts (while more pleasing to the eye) seem (IMHO) to pose problems in space. Consider an astronaut attempting to turn a bolt on the side of the Venice. How does he get the torque? How does he keep himself from turning instead of the bolt? He can attach himself to the Venice (mag-boots? Tight tethers? A lock-on frame brace?), and then turn the bolt, but that seems a little unweildy for common repairs.

2001 seemed to rely upon computer controlled electronic locks to open a panel (and the pod bay doors ). Perhaps with a mechanical emergency-release system to back it up if power fails (self-powered electronic key). This method, however, adds complexity... and complex systems are more prone to failure.

I'd bet warship armor can be constructed in a modular fashion quite easily. I did a little research about a year ago into hull design, and it seems the strongest types are those that absorb impact. So, we're not really talking about steel plates anymore. Layered composites work better. One layer is a brittle, hardened outer layer, the layer underneath is yielding and compresses easily, another layer of hard, etc., etc. With layers of pressurized hull-sealant in-between.

And the seams between modules don't have to be weak. An 'I' beam connector would serve if its top was fashioned from the same hull materials as the hull. And, as an added bonus, shock-asorbers could be fashioned into each connector.

I don't think the key in hull design is to 'survive the impact unbroken'. I believe it would focus on controlling and reducing (or even reflecting in the case of beams) the force of impact.

<font size="1"><font face="Book Antiqua"><font color="black">"Never before in the history of the world had such a mass of human beings moved and suffered together. This was no disciplined march; it was a stampede-- without order and without a goal, six million people unarmed and unprovisioned, driving headlong. It was the beginning of the rout of Civilisation... of the massacre of Mankind."
--H. G. Wells The War Of The Worlds</font id="black"></font id="Book Antiqua"> </font id="size1">

Which is good for ecconomical units, but for military you want performance above efficency. Firstly a 'single shell' would be able to spread the impact around its self more affectivly than a modular compartment. Also, a modular system, no matter how well made, will have seams that are weaker than the modules themselves. This is a weakness. Every milimeter of a military craft has too be at top notch performance. That means Seams are a weakness which is not acceptable. As to reguard with composite armour i agree totally. And in the Encyclopedia it gives very detialed descriptions of the armour on ships within EoC.

Military grade vessles want to be repaired Quickly and Affectivly. That is different from Quickly and Efficently. The most basic military grade models would be compareable in levels of sophistication and 'fluffiness' to the Delux version of Ecconomy class vechiles.

Modular parts would be specially made for military equipment, and they would not be 'plug in and use' style systems, but those that require a relativly long time to 'fuse' into the hull so that there would be no seams, no weakness, no indication that the hull and comparments and skeleton of the ship was anything but unified. Now obv the outlayer of armour which is constantly being replensished (like we constantly shed and replenish cells on the surface of our skin) is going to look 'patched on'. But 'modular' is not the way to go for the military, because performance out-strips efficeny in combat situations always. Complexity out performs simplicity. but complexity is harder to achive you say, complexity is less stable.....well then... thats what military training is for.

Jwk...comander of =HEMP HUNGRY MONKEY=
www.i-war2.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=310

Assuming the same construction methods used today (or very close) are used in I-War ship construction. . .

Why would you assume that?

Bolts (while more pleasing to the eye) seem (IMHO) to pose problems in space. Consider an astronaut attempting to turn a bolt on the side of the Venice. How does he get the torque? How does he keep himself from turning instead of the bolt? He can attach himself to the Venice (mag-boots? Tight tethers? A lock-on frame brace?), and then turn the bolt, but that seems a little unweildy for common repairs.

Hmm, an interesting thought crosses my mind here. Shane is proceeding from the mindset of a modern human thinking about space travel; i.e. everything is critically thought about before design even begins, every little nut and bolt is meticulously accounted for. This ship will be our greatest achievement! Now, think about it. These types of ships have been in common use for a looooong time in EoC. I think their design and construction at that point would be more commonly thought about in the vein that we think about auto, aircraft and ship construction today. Much more causual, and ocassionally even stupid. Anyone ever have to change a drivebelt on a four cylinder car from the 90's. Let me tell you about having to unbolt and jack the engine partially out of the car to accomplish this. Drivebelts break quite frequently. Now, what was that about bolts being unwieldy?

The point is; just because it's stupid, doesn't mean it isn't true.

but for military you want performance above efficency.

Efficiency = Performance. Everybody here needs to be sure that they're using the correct terms to express themselves. Increasing performance can be achieved by wastefully pouring resources into something, but true high performance can only be achieved by increasing the efficiency of a given system. A quick example would be professional racing vehicles. Professional, not amateur backyard mechanic. The only reason these vehicles can generate the power they do, is through highly efficient use of the fuel, highly efficient power transfer through the drivetrain and effieciently transfering that power to the ground. Racing vehicles today are also an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than previous generations because of the developement of increasingly efficient power generation and transfer techniques.

Also, a modular system, no matter how well made, will have seams that are weaker than the modules themselves.

This is not automatically true. It is entirely dependent on what the modules and seams are made of and how they're put together. A simplistic example would be: Modules of plastic connected with titanium seams would see the modules fail under stress before the seams failed. And remember; a properly done weld should be at least as strong, if not stronger, than the material being welded.

That means Seams are a weakness which is not acceptable.

Under which military doctrine are seams in construction totally unacceptable? No military combatant in the history of humanity has been constructed of a single piece of material with no seams. One reason is; a shell of a single piece of material would lkely be quite durable, but impossible to repair to it's previous strength as well as being very difficult to modify for improvements. Another reason is because the construction process could be very unwieldy. Composite aircraft components demonstrate these problems beautifully. The first one-piece all-composite wing constructed for Boeing's X-35 protype (which lost the X-35 competition btw) was a multi-million dollar disaster, caused a tiny unnoticed mistake. However, a single shell could be quite durable. And might be worth exploring for particular cases.

And in the Encyclopedia it gives very detialed descriptions of the armour on ships within EoC.

This is a good point Shane, you might want to look in here for some guidance.

Modular parts would be specially made for military equipment, and they would not be 'plug in and use' style systems, but those that require a relativly long time to 'fuse' into the hull so that there would be no seams. . .

Then they wouldn't be modular. And why wouldn't military components be 'plug in and use'? That's how they are now, and we're fast moving towards even more modular systems for military use. Modular systems are hard to completely destroy, and can be repaired and sent back into the field faster.

Well. I think that covers everything. If I didn't quote someone's point it means I probably agree with it.

mailto:second_chance@cox.net
The Ultimate Guide To Modding: I-War 2 - Edge Of Chaos (on hold during SW MP mod)
cartoons.sev.com.au/index.php?catid=4
.

Efficiency = Performance. Everybody here needs to be sure that they're using the correct terms to express themselves. Performance can be achieved by wastefully pouring resources into something, but true performance can only be achieved by increasing the efficiency of a given system. A quick example would be professional racing vehicles. Professional, not amateur backyard mechanic. The only reason these vehicles can generate the power they do, is through highly efficient use of the fuel, highly efficient power transfer through the drivetrain and effieciently transfering that power to the ground. Racing vehicles today are also an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than previous generations because of the developement of increasingly efficient power generation and transfer techniques.

Comming from a *fair* bit of real military heritage...I know that the above statement is one of those 'false truths'. that is to say its is technically true, but it doesnt actually work.
If an egnine performs 50% faster but is 200% more wastefull of fuel....then you use the wastefull engine for the military.
If the armour is 10% stronger, but 30% harder to replace...you use the 10% stronger one.
If the weapon is 5% more damaging, but requires far higher skilled tech crew and resources and enegery per shot, you use the 5% more damaging one.
Your point about the firrary either a) a lack of knowldage of military or really american.

Do not mistake the pursuit of excellence to be the same as the pursuit of effiency.

And a racing car is not a 'combat' vechile. It is a taskspecific device used for peace time entertainment. If you actually look at something that is much more 'combat' oriented then the Rallys are a better example, and you can clearly see that they quite often use things such as expendable tires (hardly 'effiecent') and inefficent fuel that gives you 2% extra torque performance.

The pursuit Efficency is a *reactionary* tactic. Great for peace time, crap for war. In war you want to make THEM react to YOU.

For every strength is an equal an opposite weakness.

More effiecent things always come at a cost, and that cost is usually durabilty. If something is simply a higher tech (i.e. the same engine with the size and shape of its components adjusted to just be 'better')....well then it cost RESOURCES to get to that higher tech in the first place...so the 'effiency' argument breaks down when it comes to military situations.

In the EoC universe of auto repair and such, making a 'full shell' is well worth it if you intend that ship to go into combat. Even it if means when you repair and maintain the ship you have to get the nanobots to reinforce and re-make the shell to its full capasity as before. and with military trained personal and auto repair 4/5 it really does become a viable option to chose non-modular systems.

Then agian, when you look at the american army, you do not see that reasoning.

EDIT:

This is not automatically true. It is entirely dependent on what the modules and seams are made of and how they're put together. A simplistic example would be: Modules of plastic connected with titanium seams would see the modules fail under stress before the seams failed. And remember; a properly done weld should be at least as strong, if not stronger, than the material being welded.

Your mentailty is really showing here, if you discover that the act of welding the metal makes the weleded bit stronger (which it doesnt, but details aside) you know what you do in the military? you get your men in their 'spare' time to weld every single milimeter of the hull so that the entire thing is enhanced. You do not just use modular parts and say 'hey! it works!, gee we dont have to put any more effort now, its efficient!'

quote:Assuming the same construction methods used today (or very close) are used in I-War ship construction. . .

Why would you assume that?

Because I tend towards realism rather than 'magic tech'. (It's simply a matter of personal preference... I doubt many would share my views.) I'd rather deal with a construction system which has real-world examples than to say "Well, it's the future and I'm sure they have some magical system where the pilot throws a pill into space and it grows into a fully-functional spacecraft." That's an extreme example, but you see my position. I like knowing how the ship functions. And my attraction to the I-War universe is because the game designers also valued this viewpoint (this is evidenced by a multitude of technologies we are now on the verge of; the particle cannon, the acceleration ring, heat sinks, etc.).

Don't get me wrong; I expect some advances. But really, if you view the last thousand years of construction, the materials have changed, but the methods of fastening them together have not.

I believe the view that these ships are similar to modern day automobiles is offset by the both the cost (and size) of the craft and the environment it performs in. If my Saturn breaks down on the side of the road I can step out of the car. Not so in space. It is a far more hostile environment than the side of a road.

While space travel has certainly become more commonplace in the I-War universe (evidenced by the taxi), it (IMHO) still is more akin to modern day naval travel than automobilies.

Note that the differences I state here can be boiled down into the differences between the I-War universe and the Star Wars universe. It's all a matter of taste.

<font size="1"><font face="Book Antiqua"><font color="black">"Never before in the history of the world had such a mass of human beings moved and suffered together. This was no disciplined march; it was a stampede-- without order and without a goal, six million people unarmed and unprovisioned, driving headlong. It was the beginning of the rout of Civilisation... of the massacre of Mankind."
--H. G. Wells The War Of The Worlds</font id="black"></font id="Book Antiqua"> </font id="size1">