Bridges

[phavoc]

To integrate this all the way down, how does this interface with cockpits?
A small, single operator vessel or craft doesn't need multiple control stations, but the station needs to do everything without overwhelming the operator. Before the development of AI assistants, you had to rely on pilot training and making the interface as simple and clear as possible to be functional.
Tech level makes a pretty big deal for usability and reducing fatigue and overload and yet the only nod to that we have is the addition of holographic controls at TL9 and the virtual crew software that starts at TL10.
Also, why does having a small bridge affect a small ship functionality but a cockpit doesn't? What are the break points for each type of bridge and what are the bonuses or penalties for using an over or under sized bridge for your vessel type?

Cockpits are different than a bridge. There is no flight deck for one. Cockpits are chairs and the person occupying the chair is surrounded by controls and displays. The operator is stuck in there until they return to base. Flight decks (and bridges) allow for a person to get up, for them to be replaced by another crew member, for them to interact with others on the flight deck.

TL giving crews more options is true, but TL also gives you more data, and thus you have the potential of data overload. A modern cockpit gives the operator sooooooo much more information than say one from 1940. There the pilot paid attention to his compass, his fuel, and maybe engine temperatures and oil pressure. He had very limited ability to know more and that was how it was. Now you have a crap ton more information available to the flight crew - but much of it has little to do with normal operations. They can actually get MORE stressed trying to keep up with all the information available to them - even if a lot of it is shunted to automated systems and alarms that only raise an alert in X situation.

And, let's be very honest here - the greater automation that is taking place is NOT necessarily a good thing. What we have seen from some very notable accidents is automation crashing the plane. The 737 crashes (Lion and Ethiopian airways) were the result of automation crashing the plane due to sensor errors. The Asiana flight that crashed at SFO on the seawall was a result of the crew over-reliance on automation and not taking control during the landing. Automation, AI and advances in the tech are great things. However they are not magical panacea's that will eliminate the human aspect. Traveller as a game is predicated upon people still being required for interstellar travel, and the game also posits a relatively hostile environment towards artificial beings. Lump all that together and I'd say your average starship is still gonna be very dependent upon human crews. Which I see as a good design (both in reality and the game). We may never be able to automate the human condition - and we probably should hope that we never do!

 

[Sigtrygg]

The most common cause for air accidents remains human error by a country mile.

Pilot error and other human factors 62%, malfunction 20%, weather 15%, foreign object collision 2%.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, I suppose in theory, but when you build a ship of a type, adding in the physical locations is the way you'd get it off the production line. At some point if owner A decided to automate it then the station would go unused. And if owner W decided he wanted a human crew (AI unions and all that), the control runs, consoles and spaces would already be there. Retrofitting a ship for such things would be a bitch. Overall the tonnage and cost amortized over the life of the ship reduces it to not a lot of credits. Just makes too much sense to see them go unused rather than not installed at the start.

So, the unmanned submarines that they are building now in the real world? Do you think they have a bridge for a human crew since they are designed and built to operate without one? It makes zero economical sense to build something you have no use for. Do they put cockpits in unmanned drones? No! Of course not. That would be stupid.