Auto Repair Software where?

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, exactly what I'm saying. ANY ship can be automated, not just small craft, which is what you said.

Then we misunderstood each other.

I thought you used it as an argument against Virtual Crew applying to small craft.

I don't say Virtual Crew can't be used on large ships, just that the bridge can't be omitted.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

That’s not how I interpreted it. More like if you don’t replace all crew, the ship isn’t fully autonomous (since it still has some crew)

 

[Condottiere]

You only need to provide enough bandwidth/avatars to replace required crew members, plus bots.

Also, timeshare.

 

[MasterGwydion]

You have to replace "all crew" and "rely purely on Virtual Crew" in order to omit the bridge. That means small craft.

It's not enough to replace some of the crew, or replace the crew with some form of automation, it has to be all the crew with Virtual Crew alone, to omit the bridge. It's a specific rule about Virtual Crew, not a generic rule about automation.

Larger ships can of course use Virtual Crew, but can't omit the bridge.



The historical precedent is that small craft (only small craft) bridges could be replaced by a computer in CT, or with a Drone Command Unit in MgT1.

Actually, what it says is that if all crew members can be replaced, the bridge can be omitted. So, you do not even need Virtual Crew software. If it is possible that Virtual Crew software can replace the whole crew, then no bridge is needed. That is RAW. RAI, probably not.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Actually, what it says is that if all crew members can be replaced, the bridge can be omitted. So, you do not even need Virtual Crew software. If it is possible that Virtual Crew software can replace the whole crew, then no bridge is needed. That is RAW. RAI, probably not.

The next sentence says the craft needs Virtual Crew to function.

HG'22, p75, Virtual Crew:
Crew can replace up to five pilots, gunners or sensor operators on board a ship, potentially allowing the ship to act autonomously if all crew can be replaced in this way. Indeed, ships can be designed without a bridge, relying purely on this software package in order to function as a drone.

IIRC the 2015 beta was clear on that the RAI was have drone small craft, not ships.


You can still completely automate jump ships with Virtual & Expert software and robots, but they still need bridges.

 

[Terry Mixon]

You can still completely automate jump ships with Virtual & Expert software and robots, but they still need bridges.

There is an executive ship in The Third Imperium, that while it has a bridge, it says that bridge is only used if the sophonts want to control things rather than being required.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There is an executive ship in The Third Imperium, that while it has a bridge, it says that bridge is only used if the sophonts want to control things rather than being required.

That design is problematic, but it does have a bridge...

It has a m/25 computer (I assume, it is listed as m/20) that can run jump control-5, but nothing more. So, it can't run the Virtual Crew software that is supposed to control the ship at the same time as the jump control.

It has no stated way of automating the needed astrogator and engineer, but I guess we can toss in a few robots for a few MCr more.


I would change to a Core/40 computer that has ample BW for automation and jump, and some repair drones as hands. Robots would be cheaper...

 

[Terry Mixon]

That design is problematic, but it does have a bridge...

It has a m/25 computer (I assume, it is listed as m/20) that can run jump control-5, but nothing more. So, it can't run the Virtual Crew software that is supposed to control the ship at the same time as the jump control.

It has no stated way of automating the needed astrogator and engineer, but I guess we can toss in a few robots for a few MCr more.


I would change to a Core/40 computer that has ample BW for automation and jump, and some repair drones as hands. Robots would be cheaper...

An optional bridge, according to the text.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

An optional bridge, according to the text.

The word "optional" isn't used.

"A small bridge and staterooms [sic] is provided..."

The stateroom may be optional (if the ship had enough automation), but the bridge is not.


Note that the bridge isn't just a room with a few workstations:

HG'22, p19:
All ships must have a bridge that contains basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The word "optional" isn't used.

"A small bridge and staterooms [sic] is provided..."

The stateroom may be optional (if the ship had enough automation), but the bridge is not.


Note that the bridge isn't just a room with a few workstations:

As stated by Mongoose elsewhere, there is a ten percent buffer in tonnage, so there is wiggle room. All those things could be inside walls if no seats for sophonts are required. The only purpose a dedicated bridge serves is for there to be room for butts in seats. The equipment needs to be there in a drone ship, but not the bridge proper.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As stated by Mongoose elsewhere, there is a ten percent buffer in tonnage, so there is wiggle room.

When drawing deck plans, yes.

When accounting for tonnage and cost of components, no...

All those things could be inside walls if no seats for sophonts are required. The only purpose a dedicated bridge serves is for there to be room for butts in seats.

Sure, you can draw a deck plan without a dedicated bridge if you like, but you still have to buy the component.

 

[Terry Mixon]

When drawing deck plans, yes.

When accounting for tonnage and cost of components, no...

And yet the calorie-free 2-ton airlock exists, and they just clarified it does not need to have tonnage designated. It simply is.

Sure, you can draw a deck plan without a dedicated bridge if you like, but you still have to buy the component.

I would agree with paying for the equipment, though without a physical bridge, that cost would be lower. Perhaps even significantly so.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And yet the calorie-free 2-ton airlock exists, and they just clarified it does not need to have tonnage designated. It simply is.

Yes, those are free components, by RAW. Always have been...
Just as the ship's locker.

I would agree with paying for the equipment, though without a physical bridge, that cost would be lower. Perhaps even significantly so.

Why? All the expensive avionics are still needed, it's just a bit of mostly empty space where the meatbags flop around.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Why? All the expensive avionics are still needed, it's just a bit of mostly empty space where the meatbags flop around.

Except for basic sensors the "expensive avionics" have tonnage allocated to them already.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Except for basic sensors the "expensive avionics" have tonnage allocated to them already.

Only the sensor package, not the rest:

HG'22, p19:
All ships must have a bridge that contains basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

There is a limit to the detailed minutiae we have to deal with, thankfully...
E.g. in T5 quarters consist of cabins (of different types and capacity), sufficient freshers (that we have to account for, of different types), separate life support systems (that we have to account for, of different types). Then the total tonnage of the quarters per person (for several categories) has to be accounted for, affecting the gaming mechanics.

Isn't it much simpler to just say one person, one "stateroom", and be free to draw as many cabins and corridors as we wish of roughly the specified tonnage?
Or one "bridge", without bothering to specify exactly how many workstations, communicators, and sensors of exactly what type (modified by TL and capability)?

This is the specification for something like a Scout bridge in T5:

Every line has several decision-points and game mechanical consequences.
Isn't it easier to say that a bridge is X Dt and Y MCr, and be done with it?


The quarters for the same ship:

Isn't it easier to say we need four "staterooms", and let them include all the petty detail?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Only the sensors, not the rest:



There is a limit to the detailed minutiae we have to deal with, thankfully...
E.g. in T5 quarters consist of cabins (of different types and capacity), sufficient freshers (that we have to account for, of different types), separate life support systems (that we have to account for, of different types). Then the total tonnage of the quarters per person (for several categories) has to be accounted for, affecting the gaming mechanics.

Isn't it much simpler to just one person, one "stateroom", and be free to draw as many cabins and corridors as we wish of roughly the specified tonnage?

What is there other than the computer, sensors, and avionics? The first two are definitely already paid for. One could reasonably argue that the avionics are rolled into the sensors. What is left? Nothing comes to mind for me, but I'm open to having missed something.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What is there other than the computer, sensors, and avionics? The first two are definitely already paid for. One could reasonably argue that the avionics are rolled into the sensors. What is left? Nothing comes to mind for me, but I'm open to having missed something.

The computer and sensor package isn't part of the bridge component.

HG'22, p19:
All ships must have a bridge that contains basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

How do you control the jump drive from anywhere? We have a ship-wide network presumably with a wireless component. That is the "bridge".
How do you talk to another ship or world? We have a multichannel high-powered commo system with voice, video, and data capability. That is part of the "bridge".
Etc, etc...
Lots of detail we don't have to worry about, the ship just works.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The computer and sensor package isn't part of the bridge component.

How do you control the jump drive from anywhere? We have a ship-wide network presumably with a wireless component. That is the "bridge".
How do you talk to another ship or world? We have a multichannel high-powered commo system with voice, video, and data capability. That is part of the "bridge".
Etc, etc...
Lots of detail we don't have to worry about, the ship just works.

The jump drive is explicitly controlled by the engineer (who makes the roll) in engineering. The commo portion, it can be argued, is part of the sensor suite.

There are lots of details we don't talk about, but thus far I haven't heard something that is separate from an already existing component.

 

[Terry Mixon]

@paltrysum had this to say. And I had this response.

Post in thread 'Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!'

Today at 9:34 PM

My take on it is the bridge is an interface for humans to control the systems in the ship. If things are automated, there is no need for a bridge. However, when your Referee says that computer gets hacked and the ship could have been operated "on manual," you'll be up the creek without a paddle. Also, it wouldn't jump with much success since a biological astrogator is required, Hiver automation notwithstanding.

The astrogator is understood, but as this is a drone ship discussion, it might not be jump capable at all or someone feels froggy. Roleplaying opportunity!

That said, one...

• Terry Mixon

•