My Size Class Table

[Meteo]

Size: Length/Width/Height in meters

1: 1-6/1-4/2-3
2: 6-49/3-40/2-20
3: 49-120/12-68/20-32
4: 120-215/68-94/32-40
5: 215-279/94-168/40-64
6: 280-399/94-206/62-76
7: 400-499/106-280/62-99
8: 500-652/260-499/100-169
9: 653-899/260-650/100-209
10: 900-1099/320-899/209-449
11: 1100-1199/608-899/209-609
12: 1200-1299/612-899/209-620
13: 1300-1399/612-899/209-630
14: 1400-1499/620-949/209-640
15: 1500-1649/620-999/220-699
16: 1650-3200/630-1699/220-2699

This is the size table which I have been making use of for ICON ship construction.

Any comments?

[tonyg]

Yeah,
Don't take this the wrong way, but why?

What are the advantages of the table vs. the orginal table?

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Why not do it in cubic metres of volume?

[tonyg]

Why not do it in cubic metres of volume?

That's a very good idea.

[Meteo]

Interesting.

Well, My size table reflects what my ICON stats were gradually leaning towards over a period of several monthes, for example taking the 105 meter long Daedalus, which would be size 4 on the other table, and making a new range so that it would still be size 3.