GURPS Spaceships Design Spreadsheet

[flyingwombat]

have you tested this Open Office 4.1.1?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by flyingwombat

have you tested this Open Office 4.1.1?

Yes, I did a quick speed test in the newer OpenOffice, and got similar speed results as in LibreOffice. Until I can get things to the point where I have most of it working I'm not worrying too much about testing across all branches of OpenOffice. I'm still working on the conversion of the various functions, which for the most part must be rewritten and tested from scratch. Once I have all the parts rewritten and tested I still need to test the parts together as a whole.

[scc]

Please note my updated post where I said I made a data entry error, for some reason despite the fact that I clicked on Metallic Laminate Light Alloy was selected

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Just a further update, but my testing in LibreOffice suggests a speed up from ~57 seconds to ~5 seconds to complete a write operation.

Another update on speed, but I found another trick which will significantly speed up write operations in Libre/OpenOffice. Unfortunately, that led to me rewriting even more older code to take advantage of the new trick rather than writing new code to get the port complete, but this really does have me hopeful that the speed issues will be resolved.

I believe at least one person mentioned experiencing memory issues when using the sheet for extended periods. I do have some hope that the new methods I'm working with will help with this as well, as they employ a lot fewer Object creation/assignments, which should result in less memory usage.

Originally Posted by scc

Please note my updated post where I said I made a data entry error, for some reason despite the fact that I clicked on Metallic Laminate Light Alloy was selected

Noted. Glad this was a non-issue.

[scc]

Eric, I'd like to make a suggestion for a pair of options with regards to Essential Fuel, this isn't quite errata level but comes close.

Base cost of EF is $2,000 per ton, but chances are that anyone casting the spell has it at level 15, this would reduce casting cost by 1 FP, so you could make 2 pounds for only a single FP.b This is my first suggestion, cut the cost in half to reflect this.

Further to the above, given that most mages are never going to have more then 20 FP, yet this stuff gets moved around in tons, clearly someone is casting it a lot (100 times per ton), this sort of suggests that there are no major chances of things going wrong, which further suggests that people casting it should get the +4 for non-stressful tasks, which likely brings base skill up to 20

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by scc

Eric, I'd like to make a suggestion for a pair of options with regards to Essential Fuel, this isn't quite errata level but comes close.

Base cost of EF is $2,000 per ton, but chances are that anyone casting the spell has it at level 15, this would reduce casting cost by 1 FP, so you could make 2 pounds for only a single FP.b This is my first suggestion, cut the cost in half to reflect this.

I won't be changing the base cost, as that's set by the rules, however I see no issue with adding a Campaign Cost Multiplier for Essential Fuels to the Campaign Options sheet, to go along with the Fuel Cost Multipliers for other fuel types.

[davester65]

Hi, I think I found a possible glitch in the open office 2.9 version. If I remove the control stations from a ship design the occupancy box goes to zero even if there are passenger seats. Not sure about habitats etc... I was designing a robotic passenger shuttle and noticed this. Also, this may sound odd, but would it be possible to include passenger seats as an option for habitats? Maybe six to a cabin unit.

[vicky_molokh]

A player found that adding 6+ Structural Reinforcement systems is way way better than adding armour (beyond the minimum requirement) for purposes of survivability. I'm inclined to believe that there should be some cap on the number of SR systems, perhaps equal to min(Armour Systems, 5). Thoughts?

[davester65]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

A player found that adding 6+ Structural Reinforcement systems is way way better than adding armour (beyond the minimum requirement) for purposes of survivability. I'm inclined to believe that there should be some cap on the number of SR systems, perhaps equal to min(Armour Systems, 5). Thoughts?

It's really just a different way to accomplish the same end. Make it so the attacker has to do more damage to destroy the ship. IRL it would probably mean the ship was ridiculously reinforced and compartmentalized to keep damage from spreading. I actually think it's a good idea.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by davester65

It's really just a different way to accomplish the same end. Make it so the attacker has to do more damage to destroy the ship. IRL it would probably mean the ship was ridiculously reinforced and compartmentalized to keep damage from spreading. I actually think it's a good idea.

It allows thousands of dHP on a ship that is normally 15 dHP. That seems way too good.