character question

[DFW]

One thing to note is that just because Mongoose use Engineer (Electronics) for a skill name, it doesn't mean that they necessarily means what you** think it does.

Unless defined differently, in the rules, I go by real world definitions & examples. If you can show the precise def in MGT, I'll go with the common definition & training for the maritime industry

 

[CosmicGamer]

Unless defined differently, in the rules, I go by real world definitions & examples. If you can show the precise def in MGT, I'll go with the common definition & training for the maritime industry

Here is my earlier post that does give the MGT rules.

Here is some backing for my position:
Note: MGTCR = Mongoose Traveller Core Rulebook

MGTCR pg 54 under Engineer

The Engineer skill is used to operate and maintain spacecraft and advanced vehicles

I don't see anything written in the rules that is close to designing or inventing. It also seams to be specifically spacecraft and advanced vehicles, nothing else. Just my opinion, but this would be more like a military school or trade school where you are taught what you need to know for a specific set of equipment but don't have a well rounded background.

MGTCR pg 57 under Science

Science skills cover not just knowledge but also practical application of that knowledge

This is more like a 4yr degree to me.

 

[DFW]

Here is my earlier post that does give the MGT rules.

Sorry, but you simply don't understand the training required to get to the stated level of knowledge to perform the tasks you can do, according to the Trav description. BTW - it doesn't take 4 years to get through the engineering courses. It only takes 2. It is all the other unrelated courses you are required to take that add those other 2 years in college...

Not much else I can say...

 

[CosmicGamer]

Unless defined differently, in the rules

If you can show the precise def in MGT, I'll go with the common definition & training for the maritime industry

I've seen references to reality. How about some references to the rules to support your views?

I've given my interpretation of the rules. Not everyone may agree. I don't expect them to. When differences in opinion occur, I try to take additional care to state things are my impression, interpretation, or opinion. I enjoy discussing differences in opinion. New ideas often come from it. Just today I looked something up before posting and noticed something in the rules that I had just skimmed over in the past. I hadn't realized how it helps explain how a totally different portion of the rules was meant to be interpreted. Things you may not have known about in real life could be discovered during a discussion. Maybe just the awareness that something someone thought was obvious is not taken the same way by others is a good thing. Lets people know what needs to be discussed within a group to make sure everyone is on the same page.

I'm not fond of comments that assume one way is the only way and any other way of thinking is wrong. I'm sorry if any of my comments came across this way. I do take some offense to statements implying I (even if it wasn't addressed to me and a generic "you" was used) don't have a certain education, training, or experience. To me, it appears you, DFW, want to stretch the rules. That's 100% fine. I can see why you have those opinions based on your reality. The rules often give an example or subset of what is possible and it is often up to us to fill in additional detail.

Personally I already give anyone with an Engineering skill more ability than the rules do. Often I let one closely related skill be used at a difficulty one higher (-2) than the appropriate skill. Like an Engineer performing a mechanical task. This would be a house rule though, not my interpretation of what the rules should allow.

Sorry, but you simply don't understand the training required to get to the stated level of knowledge to perform the tasks you can do, according to the Trav description.

What "level of knowledge"? What "training required" are you implying I don't know? What are your qualifications for understand the training required?

My guess is that very few people understand real life examples of Traveller Engineering(Electronics) since spacecraft are pretty rare in our current reality.
---

Lets take the term from the Engineering rules "operate and maintain". In real life, there are people capable of operating and doing routine maintenance on their automobile and/or their home and other things. How many of these same people are capable of doing more advance repairs or design? Some people can. Do they have a higher level in skill or is it an additional skill?

The rules state Engineers use their skill for spacecraft and advanced vehicles. My experience in real life military, someone trained to operate and repair certain electronics would not be considered capable of working on anything else - at the same level. Nor is their military training and experience responsible for any ability to designing and invent. Yes, often the guy with 12 years has more experience and has attended more schools so they may know the basics of another system better than someone green. Unfortunately, Traveller rules say that the other related skills are level zero and not that someone with, lets say, Engineer(J-Drive) level 4 automatically gets Engineer(M-Drive) at level 1 or 2.

Based on the science rules, a character with Physical Science(Electronics) skill level 4 could work on a wide variety of electronics A scientist with a related skill could work on both the M-Drive and the J-Drive at the same skill level.

BTW - it doesn't take 4 years to get through the engineering courses. It only takes 2. It is all the other unrelated courses you are required to take that add those other 2 years in college...

yes... and no. I'm sure there are times this is true but there are also times it is not. "The engineering courses" is not defined and the person getting through the courses is not defined. Personally, I attended school for 1.5 years and got my "2yr" AS degree. At first I transferred to a very technical school that would take me possibly 3 years to get through their course work so I left and went to another school where I was able to finish in 1.5 years and got my "4yr" BS degree in 3 years. Can't you tell I have a BS degree? :lol:

For clarity: One school would have required extensive classes in computer software engineering, computer network engineering, and engineering electronics for computer hardware engineering, to get a BS in computer science while in the other school you got a limited background in each but specialized in one to get your degree. And I was only interested in one area at that time.

Not sure how all my real life stuff relates to Traveller other than to muddy the water.

Someone earlier in this thread, I don't recall who, was comparing Traveller skills to education, I think specifically a 4yr degree. Obvious all skills can't be equated to 4yr degrees or even formal education. Stealth, Driving, Carouse... So I gave my opinion and to be clearer:

My point is that based on my interpretation of the Traveller rules and my understanding of schooling,
- Engineers have a background (education and experience) which is very specific. To me, a close but not exact real life example would be more like a trade school with low level engineers having just come out of trade school and higher level engineers having experience in their specific area.
- I believe Scientists would have a broader education and experience than engineers. Low level scientists having something like a 4yr degree with some work study and higher level scientist having an education more like a masters or even doctorate. This provides a much better base for being able to apply your knowledge in a variety of ways than military or trade school.

 

[BP]

...My guess is that very few people understand real life examples of Traveller Engineering(Electronics) since spacecraft are pretty rare in our current reality. ...

As relates to space - that is quite true. Unless specifically designed for it, electronic circuits cannot survive/operate except inside crew areas. (Even inside spacecraft, radiation can be a problem). Vacumm destroys many modern components (re: outgassing) as will the extremes of thermal retention and exposure (hot and cold), not to mention vibration and radiation. Even light reflection can be a problem.

...I believe Scientists would have a broader education and experience than engineers. Low level scientists having something like a 4yr degree with some work study and higher level scientist having an education more like a masters or even doctorate. This provides a much better base for being able to apply your knowledge in a variety of ways than military or trade school.

I've worked with quite a number of Research Scientists in diverse segments - in other fields, most would be referred to as Engineers (and most had Engineering degrees come to think of it). This is really a title as much as a job description.

As to 'applying knowledge' = that isn't generally the case in my experience. Scientists design, analyze and perform or manage experiments - but the technical implementation is often outside their area of training and expertise. Case in point, my father built numerous space instruments for scientists for NASA and ESA - they designed them, but without him, they had neither the skill nor expertise to 'apply' their designs (I seriously doubt most could even solder...).

The use of the term Engineer on a train or nautical vessel is really not in my area of experience - but that seems to have a more hands on aspect. While he'll know theory, maintenance and operation - designing (using high level calculus) and constructing (forging casings...) an engine might be outside his skill - though enhancing and jury rigging would certainly apply.

 

[hdan]

The use of the term Engineer on a train or nautical vessel is really not in my area of experience - but that seems to have a more hands on aspect. While he'll know theory, maintenance and operation - designing (using high level calculus) and constructing (forging casings...) an engine might be outside his skill - though enhancing and jury rigging would certainly apply.

The way I see it is this:

Science(Engineering) - you know all about the advanced differential equations and quantum theories that make the drives go, and you could probably design a brand-new drive system from the ground up. (Though having either Mechanics or Engineering skill would make things go easier - maybe a collaborator?) Operating an actual drive is within your capabilities, but you would need time to study the specifications. (In practice, you still get the -3 for not having any Engineering skill, but you can apply Science(Engineering) as a sort of "Jack of All Trades" to reduce that penalty. Science(Engineering)-3 is equivalent to Engineering-0 for all practical purposes.)

Engineering - you have the understanding of how to properly operate starship drive systems (for example, knowing what pressure and energy flux levels are "typical" and how far you can actually push things). You may not know exactly *why* the graviton fluxes cause X to happen, but you sure know how to make sure they flow in a way that will make X happen correctly. (You can apply Engineering skill as a +DM to any Science(Engineering) skill checks in a way analogous to JoT skill, since Engineers will have picked up plenty of theory along the way.)

Mechanic skill - you don't know much about plasma overpressure ratings, quantum field flux or calculus, but you certainly know how to follow a wiring diagram, batten down a loose connector panel or even fabricate a new Z valve if you have the specs.

In practice, the chief engineer of a large ship will almost certainly have at least a few levels of Science(Engineering) as well as some Engineering and maybe even Mechanic-0 or more depending on his background.

 

[rust]

The use of the term Engineer on a train or nautical vessel is really not in my area of experience - but that seems to have a more hands on aspect.

The only generally accepted rules for the training of a real world ship's
engineer are those of the International Convention on Standards of Trai-
ning, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which does not en-
force a formal education in engineering for the engineering personnel.
Different countries have different requirements which go beyond this and
demand a formal education in engineering, but most of the world's ship's
engineers are obviously just specialized mechanics.

 

[BP]

Thanks hdan - that gives me a more general idea for what I call 'equivalency' skills... like Pilot and Comm/Sensors/Computers. Likewise I think Mechanic would have to have Electronics skill to function in damage control...

Only difference - I'm thinking using it like Jot+1 - i.e. Pilot 0 imparts Sensor (-2) equivalency; Pilot-4, Sensor 1 equivalency (max equivalency).

Sure, this gives some skills more 'bang for buck' - but there already is disparity in terms of value in game as well... it also has interesting effect on min/maxing players (by self limiting certain skills that can be of rare use, but critical when needed).

(i already use a house rule for equivalencies in specialties...)

 

[BP]

... the International Convention on Standards of Trai-
ning, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which does not en-
force a formal education in engineering for the engineering personnel.
Different countries have different requirements which go beyond this and
demand a formal education in engineering, but most of the world's ship's
engineers are obviously just specialized mechanics.

Seems reasonable - though I expect military Engineers might be quite different if they are officers... (submarine and conventional vs reactor might differ again...)

 

[rust]

Seems reasonable - though I expect military Engineers might be quite different if they are officers...

Most probably, although there could still be significant national differen-
ces. Just imagine a country like Indonesia, which has lots of ships, but
is probably unable to train (and pay) a true engineer for each of them,
so everything smaller than a frigate will probably have to do with a mo-
re or less skilled mechanic.

In my view it will be very similar in most science fiction settings. Com-
paratively wealthy planets and corporations will have engineers at least
on all bigger ships, poorer planets and corporations - especially on the
frontier - will have to settle for someone who knows at which end of the
ship the drives are and who can try to do what the ship's computer tells
him to do.

 

[BP]

... poorer planets and corporations - especially on the
frontier - will have to settle for someone who knows at which end of the
ship the drives are and who can try to do what the ship's computer tells
him to do.

:lol:

'No... this way... yeah here it is... I was right all along.'

'Pretty sure this is the go room - or the head - these enginee thing-a-bobs all look the same when they're polished.'

'Hmmm. I think this here lever makes it go...'

EDIT: I honestly hadn't seen the thread titled 'Maintenance on the Go!' when I posted this!

 

[AndrewW]

...My guess is that very few people understand real life examples of Traveller Engineering(Electronics) since spacecraft are pretty rare in our current reality. ...

As relates to space - that is quite true. Unless specifically designed for it, electronic circuits cannot survive/operate except inside crew areas. (Even inside spacecraft, radiation can be a problem). Vacumm destroys many modern components (re: outgassing) as will the extremes of thermal retention and exposure (hot and cold), not to mention vibration and radiation. Even light reflection can be a problem.

Which is why NASA uses old CPU's, they've been radiation hardened.

 

[BP]

Not quite the reason - old CPUs are not inherently rad hardened and it doesn't take significantly longer to manufacture hardened devices (though, technically, the dies are smaller and discrete components are larger leading to less susceptibility to significant operational failures).

NASA (classified a civilian space agency) generally requires MIL Spec components (rad hardened being one element) and best practices dictate using proven technology. Consider, CPUs inherently have logic flaws that are accommodated by the compiler developers as they are discovered - the 'famous' Intel bug some years back the media made such a fuss over was but one of a great many. The development, testing (including independent and system integrated vibration, thermal-vacc, high voltage and radiation) and certification processes generally take years prior to a launch - during which time changing components would invalidate everything. [In recent years that time delay has significantly shrunk - I saw an actual Juno mission instrument being prepped for final integration testing last year - just a year before the first launch window - sometime this August I think...]

Flight qualified instruments are generally made with several spares from the very beginning in part to avoid unobtainable components later.

The shuttle program was so delayed, and market advancements so great, that the shuttle computers weren't much more 'powerful' than home computers of the day by the time of STS-1's launch. However, originally they were state of the art (intended for fly-by-wire F-16's or some such I think). I recall discussing custom built CPUs tailored for the aerospace industry a few years back (civilian).

BTW: the shuttle had 5 flight computers - and an offline spare. During launch, 3 of the 4 had to agree (overruling the 4th) - this being mostly about timing irregularities and signal noise. The fifth ran computations separately as a double check fail safe against software load issues or core memory corruption (magnetic core memory), IIRC. Only one computer was actually required to land.

Lots of RP fodder there

 

[AndrewW]

BTW: the shuttle had 5 flight computers - and an offline spare. During launch, 3 of the 4 had to agree (overruling the 4th) - this being mostly about timing irregularities and signal noise. The fifth ran computations separately as a double check fail safe against software load issues or core memory corruption (magnetic core memory), IIRC. Only one computer was actually required to land.

Lots of RP fodder there

Don't forget the launch where the 5th backup computer was shutting down the other computers, took them awhile to figure out the problem was the backup computer and not the ones it was shutting down...

 

[BP]

Don't forget the launch where the 5th backup computer was shutting down the other computers, took them awhile to figure out the problem was the backup computer and not the ones it was shutting down...

Yeah - and there were several other computer related problems (resulting in freezing T) in the early STS launches. Real frustration for the mission controllers - the operational theory didn't really hold up so well when fully integrated into a live system (the shuttle systems are monstrously complex) - numerous 'safety protocols' had to be overridden in the end to make things happen.

Fun for RP to be sure - '..your tertiary independent backup computer indicates a fault with the primaries and has overridden jump for safety reasons. Oh, and that trailing vessel seems to now be maneuvering at 6Gs - what do you want to do?' :twisted: