[Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Archived discussions of all specifications which have been approved and put into use by the Research & Development Department
Locked
User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

[Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Alex » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:01 am

Please see the link below for the proposed Arrowhead-class runabout specifications. As usual, the specifications are now open to discussion.

Arrowhead-class
ImageImage

User avatar
Seoulless
Crewman
Crewman
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:33 pm
Location: Underground Facility in Utah

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Seoulless » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:40 pm

Yay! Something new to debate about!

Hi, Alex, hope things are going well for you.

I was actually wondering when someone was going to think about adding this ship to PF. Its a sweet looking mesh. I really need to get more work done on my runabout mesh.

Anyway, I like the basics of it. Seems like a fairly logical progression, slighly higher warp speed, larger capacity, and better shielding. Its size will probably limit the ships it can be assigned to.

I think the evacuation limit needs to increased, unless you are saying it can hold an additional 24 people on top of its standard compliment.

As you've got it written up it seems to be more of a warship though. For its size I think I'd rather see it with 5 Type VII phaser arrays. The exponential increase in power output from the Type VI to Type VII phaser arrays I think will make up for the few number of phaser arrays.

I might also hesitate giving a small ship regenerative shielding also, unless we state that the shield strength on the Arrowhead is equivalent to a Danube. Regenerative shielding implies that the vessel has twice as many shield generators/projectors so that they can recharge while the others are in use.

This is one of those situations where I sometimes think that providing an overall 'rating' to ships might help visualize how strong shields are, how powerful phasers are, etc.

I would also like to suggest that we lay out standard weapon's lockers and what they contain. Like a Class A Weapon's locker holds 10 Type 2 phasers and 4 Compression phaser rifles as an example.

Just my two cents.

User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Alex » Tue May 06, 2014 3:44 pm

Things have been going pretty well for me. How about you?

I think you make some valid points. For the most part I've looked to the Danube and Delta Flyer classes and altered as necessary. The phaser compliment, for example, was modified from the Delta Flyer, since the idea was that it was using that technology and combining the functionality of the Danube. It's not set in stone, so I could be persuaded to change that. Same with the shields and passenger compliment. I was trying to blend the two other runabouts together into this one, and neither of them have a huge evacuation limit. This craft is larger than both of them, but much of that is also taken up by the structure. It didn't seem like the interior was that much larger than a Danube, at least not much larger to the point of having a significantly increased evac limit. I do agree with you on the Regenerative Shielding. That probably is little much for a small ship like this one.

I really like the idea of giving a 'rating' to the different ships. If nothing else, it would be a good way to compare their capabilities to each other. They could be rated on different areas, like combat, science, engines, and/or an overall rating. The big question would be how do we calculate those ratings. That can be a big undertaking in and of itself.

Classifying standard weapon lockers is not a bad idea. If you've got some ideas, would you want to write something up for it?

Oh, and don't be afraid to share your two cents. If enough people share their two cents, we can save up for a pizza party, haha. But seriously, I can make up specs for just me anytime. I love to get feedback and have these kind of discussions.
ImageImage

User avatar
Seoulless
Crewman
Crewman
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:33 pm
Location: Underground Facility in Utah

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Seoulless » Wed May 21, 2014 3:18 am

Busy, busy with work.

I think for this runabout, I'd like to see fewer more powerful phaser instead of more less powerful phasers. Mainly because I think it would help keep maintenance times down on it. Plus I think that the older Type IV and V arrays would start being phased out of standard military service for any craft large enough to mount the more powerful arrays. I see Type IV and V arrays as become more civilian self-defense weapons because technological advances probably make maintaining and repairing them much cheaper. Plus the damage output from Type VI to type VII is pretty significant.

As for evac limit, I've always viewed evac limit as the maximum that the life support system can accommodate at once and not just a matter of space. Runabouts are short term transports anyway, not designed for long term missions. I think having an evac limit between 1.5 and 2 times the normal crew capacity wouldn't be overboard. It wouldn't be comfortable, but for short periods I think the life support system could handle it.

Let me find some time to sit down and do some math crunching. Off the top of my head, for defensive ratings we could assign values based on reactor type, ship size (which typically involves how many shield emitters are mounted), shield types (such as standard, regenerative, metaphasic, etc.). Then we could build a range based on that value based on age of the design (i.e. technological level). That gives us sort of a general overview of how say a Miranda-class would match up to an Ambassador-class. Offensively we assign values to weapon types (then multiply that by how many arrays are installed, again larger ships will have more arrays or more powerful arrays or both), types of torpedoes, and any other offensive support items we can think of (such as computer type or number of computers, specialized tactical sensors, etc.). Then again, build a range off of that number based on age of the design. If you wanted we could even build in a maneuverability index and support systems index to measure how good a vessel is at specialized operations (medical, scientific, reconnaissance, etc.).

Do you want me to start a new tread for the weapons lockers (and if so where do you want me to put it)? We might even be able to expand it to other types of lockers, like engineering or medical lockers/kits. Might help engineers and doctors if they know what might be considered 'standard' equipment for away missions and the like.

User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Alex » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:30 pm

Hey, I'm sorry I put off responding on this for so long I've just been incredibly busy at work and on weekends lately. Since it's been sitting idle, I'm going to reset the timer on approvals. I've changed the number of phasers from 5 Type Vs and 5 Type VIs to 6 Type VII. Is that better, or do you think that we should go up to 7? I've also increased the evac capacity to 40.

I want to start a separate thread to talk about ship ratings. I think that's a really good idea, but I think it's going to take some working out to fine tune the ratings into a meaningful value.

As for the weapons lockers, you can either start a thread in this subforum if you want to go ahead and make a proposal, but if you want to talk about it first among the tech team, you can open a thread in the Research Labs subforum. That's just for tech team members.
ImageImage

Thomas Smith
Petty Officer 1st Class
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:29 am

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Thomas Smith » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:51 am

I do not see the actual "Crew Accommodations" for the class. Is it drop down bunks that are secured to the bulkhead or are their rooms like on the Defiant? I love little ships like this one and actually thought it had been approved, my mistake. Anyway these types of ships could make great simms I think just as an aside.

User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Alex » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:21 am

The reason that it wasn't approved is because I had an update that I wanted to make based on the discussion, but didn't get around to making that change. It has now been updated, but since it sat so long, I reset the counter.

As for a sim being based on a ship like that, I highly doubt it. It's meant as a runabout, not a full fledged starship. It's supposed to be a bit of a cross between the Danube class and the Delta Flyer class. Crew accommodations are probably pretty similar to what is on the Danube. That was not featured on the show as far as I recall, though we did see the rear compartment in an episode of TNG. In that episode, the crew lounge to the rear contained four bunks that are built into the wall like in the rooms on the Defiant. The only difference is that they are all located in the same room. Since the Arrowhead is meant to be a newer version of the runabout, it would have similar accommodations.
ImageImage

User avatar
Seoulless
Crewman
Crewman
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:33 pm
Location: Underground Facility in Utah

Re: [Proposed] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Seoulless » Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:03 pm

I think 6 Type VII are appropriate for its size. That is two dorsal (fore), two ventral (fore) and two aft facing phaser arrays. 40 for the evac capacity is good too. At that value its possible for this runabout to evacuate most civilian crews by itself (freighter, miner, scout... all except for dedicated personnel transports).

User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Approved] Arrowhead-class Runabout

Post by Alex » Sun Aug 03, 2014 4:47 pm

There has been no other discussion on this proposal, so I am changing it to Approved.
ImageImage

Locked

Return to “Approved Specifications”