Posted by Mason Marcy in PSA: specs missing on Discovery class spec page
I was digging around in the Discovery class specifications and information page and noticed that the upper level of the secondary computer core is no longer listed on deck eight. I seem to remember seeing it there previously and was wondering if it had accidentally gotten deleted. Maybe someone could get that put back? Also the Challenger is not listed under the “ships of this class” section, I saw this previously but figured it wasn’t a huge deal since the specs page was linked to from the challenger MOTD but since I am making a stink about the specifications page not being correct I figured I should point out everything I have noticed.

Mason

So looking over the specs, the upper computer core is located on deck 4. I’m not seeing a reference to a secondary computer core thought. I’d assume the intention was that the core spanned decks 4-9.

As for the ships of the class section, that’s an interesting section when it comes to our specs. It’s not meant to be a full list of ships that are that class, instead it’s a list of the proposed ship names the designer would like to see if ships are used from that class. However, if a ship already exists with a name in our group, it can change to a new spec and move the name with it. (If you want to know more about how our specs are written you can find it all here: https://www.star-fleet.com/ed/ship-submission-policy.html. It can be a bit complicated but I’m more then happy to walk anyone through it. I’ve designed one of our starbase’s, and have been working on a couple of ship designs every now and then.)

On top of that, it’s actually a real pain to update the specs, which includes modifying the list of ships at the bottom of the spec. That’s why the format specifically calls out that it’s not meant to be an exhaustive list.

Long story short, the Discovery spec is so old that it’s grandfathered in under the old spec submission plan, and to make an adjustment to the spec it would need to be fully updated and then reviewed under our new guidelines.

Hope that answers your question!
Steve