Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: Is there a reason that commodities are listed in 'units' rather than 'tons'?

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by Bashy81 View Post (Source)
    This ^^ whole post rings true. But that is in part because it is v well written
    Its clear even from a superficial glance that some parts of ED are very detailed and realistic, and others sacrifice realism for the possibility of control and entertainment.

    To take everything that isnt Neutonian or current scientific orthadoxy and lump it all in as 'softheaded carelessness' is akin to saying Game of Thrones feels very realistic in some regards however it was soft-headed and careless to include Dragons and Zombies in the series as even rudimentary research would have revealed they never existed..
    Exactly. Let's have to balance our ships' mass distribution for hyperspace jumps onward from the next expansions. We should also need to calculate mass distribution for flight in normal space, and balance our engine output to fit this. Oh wait, the former is sci fi anyway, and the latter will quickly become a bit dull. Of course, it could give us something to do while our ships magically transits between stations...

    S

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    If the maximum nett volume of a cargo canister is sized to contain 1t of liquid hydrogen then it is c.14.1m. I doubt that any other cargo has a density of less than 71kg/m.
    This is pretty much what I was going to log in to say - way back in Traveller (which of course we all know was one of the original inspirations for 1984 Elite) everything in shipbuilding was done with Displacement Tons, a.k.a. the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen (not including containment equipment obviously). So tons in the context of ships were indeed a unit of volume.

    Of course, since we don't have interiors of ships (yet?), volume isn't really relevant to ship performance, but mass is. And yet cargo cannisters are all the same size if they're loose in the world. So I imagine that the developers decided to remove the whole question of whether a 'ton' of cargo was volume or mass, by... not using 'tons', and using 'units' instead.

    Makes sense to me...

  3. #63
    I was very pro 'unit' rather than ton.

    It stems down to having something the size of a cutter, and having an entire cargo hold 'full' when the cargo weighs so much that it's just a shoe box in the middle of the storage area. A unit makes more sense than having to calculate weight / volume for arbitrary materials and having to explain why it's possible to get 5 tons of expanded polystyrene in something the size of your car glove box. Where a galactic 'unit' could mean anything, to everything lol.

    It's easier to handle hand wavium!

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by metatheurgist View Post (Source)
    I believe it was changed because CGs could collect units of things that were obviously not tons, like materials, but they looked wrong because that implied we had tons of materials on board our ships.

    This is one of the ways the old game was superior. You had grams for gems and kilos for precious metals. Just bringing those back would broaden some activities in the game. You could now have high profit trading in light courier ships of gems or precious metals; T9s and Cutters wouldn't be the be-all and end all of trade. Piracy would be more viable. Mining could have strikes of gems and precious metals that didn't take up a whole unit of cargo giving it (much needed) profitability. Eh, what do I know.
    I was entertaining this mechanic if used in E and I've got to say, yeah, that would just be incredible.

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Braandlin View Post (Source)
    Passengers. Especially luxury passengers. those buggers are almost 1000kg/m^3 but the buggers insist on having loads of space to move around in...


    EDIT: no wait... its not space they move around in, they demand air... and that's denser than hydrogen.... hmm as you were Maynard... you're right

    The hydrogen for fuel is definitely liquefied/pressurized.... so... idk if that's what you're referring to. Air is a pretty vague term...Earth Air? I mean.. are you stating that an unspecified gas composition with an unspecified pressure is more dense than a singular element in an unspecified volume with unspecified pressure?

    I find this post immensely confusing. Who the hell is Maynard?

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by SeroJu View Post (Source)
    The hydrogen for fuel is definitely liquefied/pressurized.... so... idk if that's what you're referring to. Air is a pretty vague term...Earth Air? I mean.. are you stating that an unspecified gas composition with an unspecified pressure is more dense than a singular element in an unspecified volume with unspecified pressure?

    I find this post immensely confusing. Who the hell is Maynard?
    Robert Maynard

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by Sapyx View Post (Source)
    Don't forget, that 1 tonne canister of hydrogen has to be more than just the hydrogen; it's about 250 kg of pressurized metal containment vessel, the remaining 750 kg is taken up with hydrogen.

    A 1 tonne cargo canister is about 2 cubic metres. Now, one 1 tonne canister does not necessarily equate to 1 tonne of goods. But the total canister must weigh exactly 1 tonne. Example: a 1 tonne canister of gold will be a tiny cube of gold, about 950 kgs, surrounded by aerogel packaging or some similar support structure to prevent the gold from moving around inside the giant hollow box it's sitting in; I'm assuming the canister weighs about 50 kg.

    It's well established in lore that 1 tonne of slaves (or dissidents) equals 1 slave. Few slaves weigh anywhere near 1 tonne; the rest of the mass is taken up by cryosuspension and life support equipment to keep the slave alive during transit, even if exposed to vacuum (I believe our cargo holds are not pressurized - which is why limpets etc can eject cargo into space without the ship losing atmosphere).

    Yes, it's horribly inefficient to take really dense things like gold and osmium and "fluff them up" to 2 cubic metres, but this is a necessary requirement for the highly automated cargo loading system our ships and space stations have. A system where each cargo canister is a different size and/or weight could not be highly automated as easily. It might take entire seconds for our cargo to be loaded or unloaded if that were the case.
    Where is it established in Lore that there's only 1 slave per container?

    I see 3 on the icon and dare I say that 2 cubic meters is ridiculously excessive for someone sold into servitude. Just a thought here but a criminal faction issuing a covert smuggling operation might not always comply with your assumed methodology for packing containers.

  8. #68
    Because Imperials love to say "Look at the size of that slave I just bought. Absolute unit!"

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by zimms View Post (Source)
    Because Imperials love to say "Look at the size of that slave I just bought. Absolute unit!"
    You know what they say about the size of a man's bits and pieces too, a great gauge for vitality if you're looking to work em hard with heavy labor...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345