How do you want TRO's formatted?

[Adrian Gideon]

Changing the format of TROs moving forward has been on the table for a while now. I’d even venture to say it’s likely. But that has no effect on reprinting or POD for previous TROs. There’s no sense in changing their format. It’s too much work.

[Charlie Tango]

Perhaps there's something to consider: reprinting the existing/OOP TROs in portrait format. If the page sizes are approximately the same, then the word count for the fluff should still fit, while the image could be manipulated (read: magnified) for the new orientation. Alternately: There is no absolute need for any existing images to change at all. They could remain 'sideways' in a portrait format book and thus require no manipulation. That might be a more viable option for existing art than for new TRO art going forward.

You're still going to have to do extensive layout work to make that work, so why not just redo the layout entirely at that point?

[Doom]

Because it would reduce somewhat the required layout time. It would not be a unique factor. Many standard ('portrait') format books have illustrations that are 90-degrees oriented with respect to the text. Maps and tables of organization are prime examples.

[Adrian Gideon]

It was briefly considered, we’re not pursuing that.

[kinwolf]

Technically true, but not correct.  Portrait gives more vertical space, allowing for larger Mech images.  Landscape gives more horizontal space, allowing more contextual "scene" artwork.

But, not really since half the page is taken by stats anyway. (at least in the few TRO I have)

[Kitsune413]

  Portrait but like military aircraft data books: Pertinent data, minimal to no fluff, no art save diagrams from 2-3 angles, one page. Some people like fluff, I don't need superfluous ink.

The product you're describing sounds like a nightmare to me.

On one hand, I guess it would be interesting to see them done like aircraft data books... but at that point it's almost more of a toy than an rpg supplement.

Like the Haynes manuals you see for Star Wars stuff.

[Wrangler]

I'm Landscaper myself.  It makes books nicer to me. 

I can understand people wanting to use PoD for TROS, but frankly.  CGL should reduce it's size to letter so people who want PoD can print it on letter landscaped or Portrait. 

I don' think PoD will ever go to letter size unless there change in the technology/industry.

[Adrian Gideon]

I'm Landscaper myself.  It makes books nicer to me. 

I can understand people wanting to use PoD for TROS, but frankly.  CGL should reduce it's size to letter so people who want PoD can print it on letter landscaped or Portrait. 

I don' think PoD will ever go to letter size unless there change in the technology/industry.

not sure I follow. The books are letter sized. Any slight difference in size can be easily tweaked.

POD can do letter sized. Among a great many size options.

For the longest time, this company couldn’t do landscape. It can now.

The problem with landscape, in POD, is that it’s expensive. Not that it’s not possible for the size or orientation we need.

Setting up past (X)TROs for POD for landscape is easy. To do them as portrait is essentially laying out a brand new book from scratch. At best.

This is all in regards to POD. It has no bearing on the decision to make future TROs landscape or portrait. Hope that clears things up?

[NeonKnight]

I'm Landscaper myself.  It makes books nicer to me. 

I can understand people wanting to use PoD for TROS, but frankly.  CGL should reduce it's size to letter so people who want PoD can print it on letter landscaped or Portrait. 

I don' think PoD will ever go to letter size unless there change in the technology/industry.

Ummmm....Landscape vs portrait is in regards to how the page is printed:



Letter Size, is 8.5" x 11" (standard notebook paper size), Unless you're European or from elsewhere where the closest to Letter size is A4:



Portrait/Landscape is again, just how the printed medium is oriented.

Therefore,

[Cubby]

If portrait landscape opens up the possibility of more books/availability (eg through POD), that's compelling.

My vote (probably) won't count more than anyone else's in the end, but this is my argument for portrait. A 30-year-old decision made for totally aesthetic reasons can't trump a modern change needed for business reasons.

This is all in regards to POD. It has no bearing on the decision to make future TROs landscape or portrait. Hope that clears things up?

To be even more clear - my previous statements about "landscape remains a problem for POD" were focused on using POD to bring XTROs into DTF print.

[Daryk]

Colt: Therefore... ?  ???

I think your post got truncated...

[Colt Ward]

Colt: Therefore... ?  ???

I think your post got truncated...

I did not post in this topic?

And I will go portrait for the reason a lot of other folks did, PoD . . . from what little I know of publishing and just the societal trends, a lot of things are going a la carte or on demand.  It makes sense to adapt your products ahead of the curve to be in a position to take advantage before it becomes the standard.

[dgorsman]

So here's a question if things go portrait.  If a record sheet is is included, would it be OK to skip the stats block?  Most of that information would be on the record sheet (save individual weights, but do we need that now?), and it would keep all the information on facing pages - fluff specs, description, deployment, etc. left and full-page image right.

[Daryk]

Sorry about that Colt... looking at too many threads too fast... It was NeonKnight that apparently got cut off by the system...

[worktroll]

I confess I like the stat block in the TRO.

The landscape mode usually had the stat block on the art page; it may take a little re-arrangement to break it up to fit well without minimising room for art.

W.

[DarkSpade]

Question for those for landscape(or any playing devil's advocate): Does landscape hold any advantage over portrait?  I've already listed what I think portrait's advantages are so I'm curious to see if I missed anything we'd miss out on with a change.

[Daryk]

I can't think of a landscape example that didn't have the stats on the art page...  ???

Maybe some of the aerospace stuff?

The advantage is exactly what Worktroll just pointed out, and Marauder mentioned earlier... more room for art.  The same page can have contextual art AND stats on it...

[NeonKnight]

Question for those for landscape(or any playing devil's advocate): Does landscape hold any advantage over portrait?  I've already listed what I think portrait's advantages are so I'm curious to see if I missed anything we'd miss out on with a change.

Comes down to columns printed.

Typical Portrait printing allows for two columns, while landscape allows for 3 columns.

[dgorsman]

I can half-open a landscape TRO and still see enough to get some information.  Much more difficult to do that with portrait.

Trouble with mixing art and tech stats on a portrait page is you don't get twice the height.  If the art is the same size there's less room for stats.  Things get even more difficult with omni's with many configurations e.g. Timber Wolf.

Edit: See Bakeneko entry in Wars of the Republic Era.

[Empyrus]

I would say that an Omni doesn't need all config data listed in the main page itself. Keep it to base chassis plus maybe the prime, others can be just record sheets.

At least, this is assuming RS were included with the TRO, reckon most folks aren't filling record sheets manually from TRO entries.

[Euphonium]

I prefer the aesthetic of landscape but I'll give that up if portrait means more/better/affordable product.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Flip through the Field Manuals, they've got plenty of art and stat blocks put together just fine.  If a book were to be properly formatted - and list everything like heat sink and special armor/IS locations! - then I'd still totally buy it.  I'd suggest it'd be no harder to use than landscape.

I mean, it's not like it's SFB, where everything is bound portrait but printed landscape, so you're flipping pages vertically...

[SCC]

I'm Landscaper myself.  It makes books nicer to me. 

I can understand people wanting to use PoD for TROS, but frankly.  CGL should reduce it's size to letter so people who want PoD can print it on letter landscaped or Portrait. 

I don' think PoD will ever go to letter size unless there change in the technology/industry.

If there's going to be any mucking around with paper size it should probably be switched over to A4 because Letter size is US only.

[Wolf72]

Portrait. I don’t like the mess the landscape ones make of my bookshelf.

repeating this ... I like the landscape, but portrait fits my life much better.

[dgorsman]

Maybe it's just me, but how is the TRO making a mess, exactly?  Is it falling off, or...?   ???

[Sartris]

The back end sags and warps because the portrait orientated books don’t support them.

[dgorsman]

Odd.  I don't have that problem.   Portrait or landscape,  they both are the same at the back, and support each other just fine.

[Robroy]

I would say that an Omni doesn't need all config data listed in the main page itself. Keep it to base chassis plus maybe the prime, others can be just record sheets.

At least, this is assuming RS were included with the TRO, reckon most folks aren't filling record sheets manually from TRO entries.

I feel the opposite. I like the stats as I can easily see how a mech is equipped at a glance. I would like to see stats for variant mechs in a similar way omnis are done.

[ActionButler]

Portrait

Matches the rest of my books, less floppy, presumably easier to send to print-on-demand.  The new books with mini TROs have shown clear examples that portrait orientation is perfectly functional for the task. 

[Garrand]

Maybe it's just me, but how is the TRO making a mess, exactly?  Is it falling off, or...?   ???

For me, they stick out on my bookshelf, & creates a gap at the top when stacked with my other portrait configured book. I have all my Battletech collection on my bottom shelf, & luckily near a wall, so I don't accidentally kick the books. But the TRs sticking out over the edge of the bookshelf is asking for them to get knocked about with additional unnecessary wear.

Damon.