Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Faeriespace - Was: Fairyspace Expansion
Next Message: Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?
Month Index: October, 2007


From:     Steven <steven.james.1@??????????.??.uk>
Date:     Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:41:10 +0100
Subject:  Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?
Guys, when I'm making my ships in 3D, I assume an average hull thickness
of 1 foot, a bit thick, but considering the nature of SJ etc, it's
reasonable average (6 or 8 inches is perhaps more likely on smaller
ships but a set standard is easier to work with).

I take hull volume from the *outer surface of the hull*. I make the
inner surface of the hull separate actually, so I can remove it when not
needed and for use for interior shots as needed. I don’t use wings, wing
supports etc for getting these measurements, only the hull. 
-is this correct or should we use ship's fittings as well, to get air
volume?

At the moment I'm going to stick to putting cubic feet volume on ship
cards until we can get a definitive answer on what to use!

I'll let you guys decide on a standard, perhaps we should take a vote or
something on it? SJ needs *a standard we can ALL use* regardless of
(A)D&D edition, Hackjammer or whatever.
:)

-----Original Message-----
From: Spelljammer Setting Discussion
[mailto:SPELLJAMMER-L@??????.???????.com] On Behalf Of Charles Taylor
Sent: 09 October 2007 16:55
To: SPELLJAMMER-L@??????.???????.com
Subject: Re: [SPELLJAMMER] Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached
files ok?

In message <BAY135-DAV9F9E6D07CF281AA54E4059AA40@???.gbl>
          David Shepheard <david_shepheard@???????.com> wrote:


*snip* 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.6/1059 - Release Date:
09/10/2007 08:44
 


Previous Message: Re: Faeriespace - Was: Fairyspace Expansion
Next Message: Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?
Month Index: October, 2007

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    David Shepheard    08 Oct 2007 20:58:57
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Paul Westermeyer    09 Oct 2007 07:43:20
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Charles Taylor    09 Oct 2007 15:54:43
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Steven    09 Oct 2007 21:41:10
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Adam Miller    09 Oct 2007 22:53:28
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Edward Swing    10 Oct 2007 11:39:19
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Adam Miller    10 Oct 2007 11:51:59
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Charles Taylor    09 Oct 2007 13:23:38
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    Adam Miller    10 Oct 2007 16:07:05
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    David Shepheard    10 Oct 2007 22:11:29
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    David Shepheard    11 Oct 2007 00:05:35
Re: Tons, tons and more tons - Was: Are Attached files ok?    David Shepheard    11 Oct 2007 00:56:28

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]