Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
If you actually want to evolve it, the computer rules have to be completely rewritten.
Mainframe Computer
- Thread starter MasterGwydion
- Start date
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Why? Do you think humans will be writing code more efficiently in the future? Right now, the problem isn't hardware, its software being written so inefficiently. Both could use the exact same computer and the one with the better software will run better. Software, like everything else should have varying levels of legality based on use and need. Programs such as Advanced Fire Control and Battle Network, should be restricted. That is your difference. The military today does not have more powerful computers than the large corporations of today. If anything, the corporations have more powerful computers than the military.
Yes, subject to laws and regulations using software, and maybe the use of a hardware key to further limit use.
Why? This is already covered by TL and TL has more variations than the Basic, Advanced, etc method. You already get a bonus based on the TL differences between ships for sensors and such, so just continue that train of thought.
Or Computer in Traveller is used as a general term that already includes a dispersed network on a warship or an office building.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
No, there are significant hardware differences - hardening and redundancy spring immediately to mind.
Civilian computers can not survive a modern battlefield, let alone one where EW has advanced by a TL or nine...
I agree.
I agree again.
Yes they do in that they are hardened and redundancy is built in.
We don't know what the classified super computers of the military are capable of.
I still maintain there will be a hardware difference between military and civilian computer systems, just like there is today.
To allow for greater differentiation at the same TL.
A warship network has to have multiple redundancies built in and must be hardened to withstand the battle-space.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
The AP-101, being the top-of-the-line of the System/4 Pi range, shares its general architecture with the System/360 mainframes.[19] It is a repackaged version of the IBM Advanced Processor-1 (AP-1)[20] used in the F-15 fighter.[19] The AP-1 prototypes were delivered in 1971 and the AP-101 in 1973.[21] It has 16 32-bit registers. Originally only 16 bits were available for addressing memory; later this was extended with four bits from the program status word register, allowing a directly addressable memory range of 1M locations. This avionics computer has been used in the U.S. Space Shuttle, the B-52 and B-1B bombers,[19] and other aircraft. It remained in service on the Space Shuttle because it worked, was flight-certified, and developing a new system would have been too expensive.[22]
There were a number of variants of the AP101. The Offensive Avionics System, a retrofit update of the B-52, contains two AP-101C computers.[23] The AP-101C prototypes were delivered in 1978.[21] The B-1B employs a network of eight model AP-101F computers.[24] The Space Shuttle used two variants of the AP-101: the earlier AP-101B and the upgraded AP-101S. The AP-101B was used for a series of Approach and Landing Tests in 1977. The first ascent to orbit was in 1981. The AP-101S first launched in 2000.
Each AP-101 on the Shuttle was coupled with an input-output processor (IOP), consisting of one Master Sequence Controller (MSC) and 24 Bus Control Elements (BCEs). The MSC and BCEs executed programs from the same memory system as the main CPU, offloading control of the Shuttle's serial data bus system from the CPU. The AP-101B originally used in the Space Shuttle had magnetic-core memory. The upgrade to the AP-101S in the early 1990s replaced the core with semiconductor memory and reduced the size from two to one chassis.[25] It was augmented by glass cockpit technology. Both variants use a microprogram to define the instruction set architecture. The early AP-101 variants used IBM'S Multipurpose Midline Processor (MMP) architecture.[26] The AP-101B microprogram implemented MMP with 154 instructions. The AP101S could operate with a backwards compatible MMP with 158 instructions or the MIL-STD-1750A architecture with 243 instructions.[25] It was based on the AP-101F used in the B-1B. The AP-101S/G was an interim processor. The AP-101B performance was 0.420 MIPS, while the AP-101S was 1.27 MIPS.[25] James E. Tomayko, who was contracted by NASA to write a history of computers in spaceflight, has said:[27]
"It was available in basically its present form when NASA was specifying requirements for the shuttle contracts in the 1970s. As such, it represents the first manned spacecraft computer system with hardware intentionally behind the state of the art."
The Space Shuttle used five AP-101 computers as General-Purpose Computers (GPCs). Four operated in sync, for redundancy, while the fifth was a backup running software written independently. The Shuttle's guidance, navigation and control software was written in HAL/S, a special-purpose high-level programming language, while much of the operating system and low-level utility software was written in assembly language. AP-101s used by the US Air Force are mostly programmed in JOVIAL, such as the system found on the B-1B bomber.[28]
There were a number of variants of the AP101. The Offensive Avionics System, a retrofit update of the B-52, contains two AP-101C computers.[23] The AP-101C prototypes were delivered in 1978.[21] The B-1B employs a network of eight model AP-101F computers.[24] The Space Shuttle used two variants of the AP-101: the earlier AP-101B and the upgraded AP-101S. The AP-101B was used for a series of Approach and Landing Tests in 1977. The first ascent to orbit was in 1981. The AP-101S first launched in 2000.
Each AP-101 on the Shuttle was coupled with an input-output processor (IOP), consisting of one Master Sequence Controller (MSC) and 24 Bus Control Elements (BCEs). The MSC and BCEs executed programs from the same memory system as the main CPU, offloading control of the Shuttle's serial data bus system from the CPU. The AP-101B originally used in the Space Shuttle had magnetic-core memory. The upgrade to the AP-101S in the early 1990s replaced the core with semiconductor memory and reduced the size from two to one chassis.[25] It was augmented by glass cockpit technology. Both variants use a microprogram to define the instruction set architecture. The early AP-101 variants used IBM'S Multipurpose Midline Processor (MMP) architecture.[26] The AP-101B microprogram implemented MMP with 154 instructions. The AP101S could operate with a backwards compatible MMP with 158 instructions or the MIL-STD-1750A architecture with 243 instructions.[25] It was based on the AP-101F used in the B-1B. The AP-101S/G was an interim processor. The AP-101B performance was 0.420 MIPS, while the AP-101S was 1.27 MIPS.[25] James E. Tomayko, who was contracted by NASA to write a history of computers in spaceflight, has said:[27]
"It was available in basically its present form when NASA was specifying requirements for the shuttle contracts in the 1970s. As such, it represents the first manned spacecraft computer system with hardware intentionally behind the state of the art."
The Space Shuttle used five AP-101 computers as General-Purpose Computers (GPCs). Four operated in sync, for redundancy, while the fifth was a backup running software written independently. The Shuttle's guidance, navigation and control software was written in HAL/S, a special-purpose high-level programming language, while much of the operating system and low-level utility software was written in assembly language. AP-101s used by the US Air Force are mostly programmed in JOVIAL, such as the system found on the B-1B bomber.[28]
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
These are simple add-ons. Hardened, add 50% to the price. Redundancy, add a second computer. Easy. No actual differences in how the computers actually work.
Again, Hardening and redundancy, already in the game.
This does not make the computers more powerful, it just makes them more resilient.
None. The most powerful computers in the world are in the corporate world, not the military. Who builds the military's computers? Here is a hint, it is not the military.
Resiliency and redundancy, just like I mentioned above, not a change in computer power.
How do you believe that allows for greater differentiation? There are like what, 5 different levels of Basic, Advanced, Military, etc? Yet from TL-6 to TL-16, there are 11 different levels. Last I checked, 11 is greater than 5.
Again. This has nothing to do with computer power. It is resilience and redundancy. (Hardening and back-up computers.)
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
No, they are anything but simple. At least in the real world.
Define what you think more powerful means.
You really believe that?
We need a definition for what you consider computer power to be. Processing, running more than one program at a time, parallel processing...
Because you have basic, advanced and military option at every TL, which I make as 33, and 33 is much greater than 11 "last time I checked" as you so politely phrase it.
What do you consider computer power to be?
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
National Security Agency.
Estimate five to ten years ahead commercially available computers.
Estimate five to ten years ahead commercially available computers.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
We are not talking about the real world. We are talking about game mechanics while trying to use real world examples for things that haven't been invented for another 1,000 years.
Processing Power, number of operations that can be performed per second.
Being ex-military and seeing the crap they had Us using, yes, I definitely believe this.
In Traveller, that would be Bandwidth. It covers all of those things currently. So, that is the definition that I am using.
You do not have that at every TL now. Currently each of those things are at a different TL. So, you want to change how it works for everything, not just computers?
See above.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
21 Fastest Supercomputers In The World | In 2025 - RankRed
We have curated a detailed list of fastest supercomputers in the world. They all are non-distributed computer systems running on Linux.
www.rankred.com
Look at the Vendor entries for each computer.
NUDT
Nvidia
Cray
NRCPC
IBM
Nvidia (again)
Bull Sequana
IBM (again)
Cineca
Hewlett Packard
Fujitsu
Microsoft
HPE
Hewlett Packard (again)
Dell EMC
Cray (again)
Cray (again)
Fujitsu (again)
Lenovo
IBM (again)
CSTJF
How many of those are military and how many are companies that just do business with the military? The military doesn't make computers, it buys them.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Then why do you keep referencing real world computer capability?
What a bout parallel processing. "Quantum" processing, synaptic processing...
Being ex-military you had access to the super computers hidden away at secret military bases...
And yet the consensus is that that is one of the problems that needs fixing.
Yes, in the fullness of time.
A TL10 sensor system should be better than a TL9 sensor system.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
I was responding to you in reference to Resiliency and Redundancy which are already included in the game as Hardened and Back-up Computers.
This is the conversation thread below.
"No, they are anything but simple. At least in the real world."
Processing power is processing power as far as a game mechanic is concerned. How you get to the level of processing power isn't really important for the game.
Most of those computers are in well-known bases. You don't need to hide the computers. You just don't tell anyone what calculations that you are running.
The thing I hate most about Bandwidth is the name. Should have called it something else because Bandwidth means something specific in the real world and the Traveller definition doesn't match that. It would have avoided a lot of confusion over the years.
I always like the idea of TLs being a 1-digit decimal kind of thing. TL-3.4 or TL-14.7
I keep forgetting that how I run this isn't actually by the rules.
I use the difference in TL from the sensors to whatever the sensors are being used on as a modifier to the roll.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
There has to be an attempt at handwavium for why a TL8 computer network is better than a TL7 one.
There are military installations that are hidden away from prying eyes, and military computers way more capable than anything in the civilian world.
I completely agree.
Me too, or at the very least early, standard and advanced.
Me too, which is why I would have sensors, comms, computers all use TL difference as a modifier. If I were to re-write the rules that is.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Why? Just say it is better, give the modifiers and call it done. All I need to know is how to define it with game mechanics. I don't actually have to invent the technology myself. All that is required to hack a computer is already in the rules and there are already modifiers for TL differences. So, why make up handwavium when there is no need to do so?
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
I have a sector wide robot "intelligence" like that in my Trojan Reaches - one single instance in a Gen Eric Bar at most starports. Called Mr Lovegrove.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Why not? Mechanically it works
Save that for the setting guides in each setting. It has no bearing on the rules. You can say that a grape is a computer IYTU. As long as it obeys the rules of computers in the books, who cares? Aren't you the one who is always arguing that Traveller is a game system, not a setting. So? Keep them separate. Is doesn't matter if the computer is quantum, electromagnetic, chemical, or organic. It only matters that, the rules work across all of those "explanations" with no changes needed, because game-mechanically, they all work the same.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
It is a science fiction game.
The game requires rules
the fiction requires exposition
the science requires description and explanation.
To reduce a game to...
you have 6 characteristics - call them 1 to 6, no need to name them since all we need to know is which one to apply as a bonus penalty
you learn skills - call them A-H, no need to name them just which skill to use in which circumstance
no need to describe circumstance, just say which skill A-H will be tested...
is not very satisfactory
Similarly to just say a TL6 gun is better than a TL5 gun is lacking...
how is the gun different, who cares it just is.
The game requires rules
the fiction requires exposition
the science requires description and explanation.
To reduce a game to...
you have 6 characteristics - call them 1 to 6, no need to name them since all we need to know is which one to apply as a bonus penalty
you learn skills - call them A-H, no need to name them just which skill to use in which circumstance
no need to describe circumstance, just say which skill A-H will be tested...
is not very satisfactory
Similarly to just say a TL6 gun is better than a TL5 gun is lacking...
how is the gun different, who cares it just is.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Ruleset? Check.
Setting? Check.
Science does, as long as the fictional science is constant and internally consistent, that is good enough. None of Us actually know how a jump drive works. Personally, I think when they tried to define a jump drive, they failed miserably. They created a 40-year argument over a fiction layer of reality. Are hulls embedded with a real metal that in the Traveller universe has magical properties? Do jump bubbles exist? Are they filled with hydrogen? Why is so much fuel used to transition to jumpspace? Why if you use antimatter, do you not need a jump bubble?
None of these issues exist if you just gave the rules for jumping, gave the rules for putting jump drives in ships, and left the explanations alone. People trying to get fancy or being lazy is why We have 90% of the issues in the game system today
Calling them 1 through 6 is technically naming them, unless you mean that they can change their identifying numbers without warning.
Same
Saying what skill is used is up to the player, not the Referee.
A TL-6 gun, should be better than a TL-5 gun, and it likely that it would be if people over the years didn't do dumb stuff. As it stands right now the weapons in Traveller do not do that. Laser weapons are terrible in Traveller. In an effort to "explain" the technology, we have made several things, like jump drives and jumpspace, worse. For example, by saying that gravity in realspace affects travel in jumpspace, connects two things that never needed to be connected. It now means that ships can drop other ships out of jumpspace and into realspace simply by being there and having gravity. That is unnecessary for the game. Because now it means that I can do things never intended by the game designers, such as building one of those star destroyers that pull people out of hyperspace. But instead of using technology to do it, I can just move a large object in the way of your expected jump path. Personally, I doubt that was the intent behind it, but it is one example of a result.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Meet hot singles who want to date you, in your subsector.
