>A few comments:
> 1) Still no editting being done. Typos all through the product.
There are some definite problems with layout, but I don't think that 'typos
all through the product' is an accurate description. The largest problem I
had with the book was some formulas are clearly stated and some are embedded
into the text. It can make things very difficult sometimes. :)
> 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?
A little bit of errata that Susan posting somewhere had the V representing
parsec's per hour. I understand she's working on a subspace ship just to see
how it works out. There's also errata concerning the multiplication for ship
combat. The reference in the same section to x200 should be x50.
> 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.
Could you post your obvious errors? Derek Wildstar and the GDW-beta kinda
folks actually posted some designs that came out -very- close to the real
thing. Although I'd defer to him, I think his biggest complaint was that the
weapons came out heavy when you got into the high-power range. If you've
come up with more obvious errors, I'd like to see them - maybe work up some
fix.
> 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.
I believe that's perfectly reasonable. The Gauss weapons in CT and MT where
set at 4mm. What's the problem here?
> 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...
Unfortunate, but true. Derek Wildstar and John Bogan both made some yelping
regarding this lack of design sequence.
>On to the good (or not so bad) things:
> [...]
> 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.
Isn't this supposed to be part of the 'good things' list? They say straight
out (as much as anything is straight out) that the Fusion rockets and HELPaR
rockets don't match reality, and that if you're interested in being a
reality bug, stick to the ramjets & rockets.
>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....
Yet another bit of oddness. I don't know why they went to HEPLaR as opposed
to gravitics - but the TL15 grav vehicles are using them for thrust in the
atmosphere. Yep - a plasma gun it is, but If you think of it, this has been
been an aspect of SF for a long, long time - as well as beaten to death on
this list the same amount of time. :)
joe University of Missouri - Columbia
[email removed] [phone removed]