specialized computers

[AndrewW]

And I hope I haven't offended you - that was not my intent = I apologize if I have.

Nope, you haven't.

To me HG does not clearly lay out the nomenclature for classifying a capital ship - mixing the common meaning and the use as a design system for larger vessels. Further, it neglects to label the sub 2001 ton ships.

Agreed, some things could be clearer.

 

[ColHut]

On the topic...

Capital ships' computers are rated differently to normal ones and can run all the things you need pretty much at once. Even so, at their cost I put a spare in ech section.

It is at the level of smaller starships that I am concerned.

regards

 

[BP]

I try not to get too detailed about computers in my TUs over the decades, this being best given the extreme RW experience gaps

In MGT, for sub-capital sized ships, at TL 12 and above, I simply assume the computer is integrated throughout the ship, instead of a core system, and everthing important is multi-redundant. Basically, non-system specific systems are not 'functionally' damaged till the structure is destroyed. Ex: the jump drive being disabled, can easily refer to mechanisms or computer functionality. Terminals and other interfaces can be - and that is Ref's call to add drama and throw monkey wrenches.

This works well given MGT Core not providing a specific tonnage for ship computers and damage during Space Combat.

For Captial Ship's, well, I still haven't used the Expanded Space Combat rules, till they are clear, it is a mute point to me.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Also, there is no reason you couldn't put a Capital Ship sized Core computer onto your little spaceship.

I envision X-Boats actually having Core/3 computer or something like that.

 

[Thkaal]

The biggest problem with computers in games is the efficiency of computers in the real world and their "evolution." Take for instance all the NASA systems that put man on the moon. My phone has more processing power than that room full of computers (slight exaggeration, but only slight).

My own home computer back in 1984 (Commodore 64) is a joke. And that was only 30 years ago.

So take a look at all the computers in any rpg from the 70's or 80's, and the estimated advances are a joke. Just doing the math alone, we of earth today have roughly TL 10 computers or higher.

Now, I'm not suggesting a rewrite, but rather an understanding that most of what we consider programs of today could be basically be complexity 0 or .5.

 

[AndrewW]

The biggest problem with computers in games is the efficiency of computers in the real world and their "evolution." Take for instance all the NASA systems that put man on the moon. My phone has more processing power than that room full of computers (slight exaggeration, but only slight).

This is true even in current space rated hardware. The current CPU's that are space qualified are a few generations behind.

 

[BP]

...This is true even in current space rated hardware. The current CPU's that are space qualified are a few generations behind.

Not quite true - the needs of most space hardware preclude the 'speed' and capacity of modern CPUs and this 'fact' has to ignore, um, certain major players in the space arena... that does not mean they are generations behind.

Also, one must account for the fact that systems bound for space take several years generally to fabricate, test and deliver to their operational destinations (my father will retire next year - and his instruments built several years ago onboard New Horizons won't reach their priority destination till 2015...)

CPUs and all hardware for that matter, must operate in a hostile environment in terms of radiation damage (let alone heat/vacuum conditions). The relative density of components on say a modern PC CPU is such that the scatter damage from a single high-energy event can effectively ruin them. So from a reliability standpoint - given the huge dollars and manhours of investment - prudence precludes off the shelf mass manufactured components.

However, today, astronauts and tourists routinely carry fairly standard laptops aboard (and some onboard equipment is very off the shelf). Though, they have also experienced failures due to radiation events.

Taking this back to Traveller - the same can be assumed to hold true, just on a different scale. MGT does make some provisions for normal radiation exposure to crew - indicating hull would also not guarantee protection for computer systems as well. So they would require additionally redundancy, self diagnosis/repair, etc. at the hardware level and the application level.

Comparing space travelling computers with atmo shielded planet bound systems may be an apple and oranges sort of thing...

 

[AndrewW]

Not quite true - the needs of most space hardware preclude the 'speed' and capacity of modern CPUs and this 'fact' has to ignore, um, certain major players in the space arena... that does not mean they are generations behind.

Not sure which are currently available that are space rated but it's not the most modern CPU's you'll typical find in a desktop but an older generation. Wasn't saying there was anything wrong with this.

However, today, astronauts and tourists routinely carry fairly standard laptops aboard (and some onboard equipment is very off the shelf). Though, they have also experienced failures due to radiation events.

Was referring to those that are hardened for the space environement not the off the shelf ones taken up. But yes there are standard ones operating up there as well.