-------------------------------------------- On Tue, 4/21/15, David Golden <xxxxxx@pcisys.net> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] FF&S To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 10:10 AM On Tue, April 21, 2015 11:46 am, Bruce Johnson wrote: > As published, a hash was pretty much made of everything. Almost none of > the ‘standard’ ships in the T4 book could be built with the design > system published in the book, the inconsistencies between QSDS and SSDS That seemed to be a consistent theme for Traveller, from the LBB days on. We'd hoped to finally break that streak. I'd hoped we could actually get the TML to use FF&S to design ships and vehicles for submission. What I still can't wrap my mind around is that they took the final draft in Word format, apparently without reading it, dumped it into some print layout program, and never bothered to error check anything. A single read through would have shown the equations were scrambled. And to confirm what others have noted, T4 FF&S was basically a port of TNE FF&S to the T4 environment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sometimes things are just too broken to fix... By the time GDW went belly-up the rules had become a hideously over-complicated mish-mash of everyone & their brother's 'Great Idea to Fix Traveller'(tm). I had high hopes that once it was back in MM's hands things would be better but once all the talk about even more complication started, I got really, really bummed & became one of the first to 'drift away'. It's too bad T4 wasn't done the way T5 was but I'm not sure that it would've been possible back then... =========================================================================================
