>I just finished rereading the DA compilation, and notices that the
>Hyperdrive rating on this is just 1.5, yet the text claims that it's
>quite good. I would have thought that since a rating of 1 was
>"baseline", and lower is better, that it would also have had a rating
>under 1. Am I missing something, or is this a misprint on your end
>(perhaps you wanted 0.66, i.e. 1.5x faster than baseline)?

It is quite good, but it's a matter of context. What the file says is:

"Even her secondary FTL system, despite being a mere backup, has a lower elapsed-time rating than the primary hyperdrives fitted to modern light freighters."

The key thing to keep in mind here is that freighters, despite what you may have been conditioned to expect by the likes of the Millennium Falcon? Are sllllloooooowwwww. Factor-3 hyperdrives are not uncommon in the cargo haulage industry, and the average is somewhere a bit north of 2. In that context, 1.5 is pretty damn fast, particularly for a system that isn't even the ship's primary FTL drive.

>I also noticed a couple typos in the DA stories, which if I can find
>them again I'll post separately in the appropriate thread.

Thanks. Alternately, you could PM them, since everyone else doesn't really need to know where they were. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.