Just got FF&S a couple of days ago.
A few comments:
1) Still no editting being done. Typos all through the product.
2) Only one noticable problem in the starship rules - the
"Subspace" rules give a method for computing "subspace velocity", but
doesn't bother to provide clues as to what units the velocity so
generated has. Parsecs per day? Parsecs per hour? Furlongs per
fortnight? Feet per Candle-Inch?
3) Who managed to hose up the small arms design rules? I notice
after only a few minutes of study that the most accurate round for a
given barrel length is a large caliber pistol (straight case) round.
This does not match reality very well. I also notice that the lower the
muzzle energy, the more inherently accurate the round is. Very odd.
4) In the same section, I notice that the arbitrary barrel length
limits (0.2 to 2.3 times "average") preclude the design (within the
rules) of the Thompson submachine gun, the longer barrelled variants of
the Uzi and the Luger, the Ruger 0.44 caliber carbine, the M3
"greasegun", and almost all other WW2-era submachine guns. And the
sawed-off shotgun, of course.
5) In the Gauss weapon section, I notice that the rule for
determining projectile mass produces reasonable numbers as long as the
caliber is 5mm or less. By the time you get up to 20mm (the limits that
the rules apply to), you are firing something shaped rather like a
hockey-puck out of your gauss weapon.
6) No rules for something like a Gyrojet or the old 10mm ARL.
This can be fixed by using the rules for large rockets and scaling down,
if necessary, but this is really no more accurate than using the
artillery rules, scaled down, for handguns...
7) And finally, the example ACR in the back (which I notice is now
the "Generic" ACR for TNE) is not designed in accordance with the rules
presented in the small arms design sequence. How come? And does that
mean that the other new weapon stats provided in their little insert are
not designed properly either? Do I detect a hint of "Shattered Ships"
in here? Did the same guy do both sets of designs?
On to the good (or not so bad) things:
1) The maximum speed in atmosphere as a function of acceleration
has finally been fixed. You no longer need to give your fighters 4+G's
to match the performance of an F-15 (1.25 G's). On the other hand, the
new system would allow an F-16 (1.25 G's) to pull Mach 3.5 clean.
Admittedly, I find erring in this direction slightly more appealing
than erring in the other direction, but would it have been too much to
ask to get something that comes close to the real world?
(minor related quibble) Why can't any of the people who do "Vehicle
Design Rules" (GURPS, Trav in all incarnations) put a fudge factor in
dealing with the "sound barrier"? In every one of these systems, there
is absolutely no problem with designing a vehicle that can ride right at
the speed of sound. This does not match the real world all that well...
2) The fusion rocket STILL has performance much better than
reality. But it no longer has an FTL exhaust, so it doesn't just blow
my suspension of disbelief away like it used to. Looks like it will be
the drive of choice for warships, since it allows for a lot more delta-V
than the Heplar does, even with the larger size of the fusion rocket
taken into account.
3) I really like the addition of alternate "realistic" thrusters.
I've already worked up a usable Bussard ramjet warship, which I MAY find
a use for someday.
4) Likewise the rest of the "alternate" technologies.
5) Cybernetics - these seem cribbed heavily from 2300AD, which
doesn't bother me at all. The 2300AD rules were mostly pretty decent,
and the change from the 2300AD system to TNE system mostly makes the
cybernetics work better (I always thought that the stat-enhancing
cybernetics were pretty useless in 2300AD, since they mostly required
that you have a stat just below a breakpoint to get any meaningful
effect (other than the removal of some tens of thousands of credits from
the PCs)).
Nothing else really stands out one way or another. Yet. I've only had
about three hours to look at it so far, and undoubtedly further study
will produce more commentary, which I probably will not bother to make
publicly...
Oh yeah! The Heplar (insert caps where approriate - I don't remember
where they belong) drive description includes a pretty neat bit of
misdirection. It states (more or less) that the exhaust is not
especially harmful because it isn't radioactive. Well, that makes the
Heplar a REALLY HUGE PLASMA GUN, as opposed to the REALLY HUGE FUSION
GUN I originally thought it was. It'll still trash a city quite
handily....