Computers are SOO big - V Clunky
- Thread starter themink
- Start date
trader jim
SOC-14 1K
guess what.....one of my computers is going to blow.....can you find it in time?????...... 
TheColonel
SOC-9
Colonel, the problem with your argument is that a Generate progeram can be run on a 1940s computer much smaller than Eniac.
This is NOT a supercomputer. Apparently once we figure out how to do it the number crunching should be easy.
And I agree, a 52 cubic meter TL9 computer should be a Teraflop super computer. But the computer-3 is outclassed by a 1975 PDP-12 using Travellers own definitions of computer power.
Nurd-Boy, NASA in the early 70s bought time on the Rice University computer, an IBM 360, which had about the power of a 486 running Linux. And the Apollo on board computer was capable of navigating on its own if radio communication were lost. The reason why they did all the computing on the ground in "Apollo 13" was because the on-board computer was powered down.
Also, "all the other functions of a ships computer" is your fantasy, and I challenge you to find support in the Traveller rules. Remember a Computer 1, a vacuum tube eniac could do everything expected of a ships computer and jump. And if a computer is completely destroyed the other functions are not affected, so they are not controlled by the ship's computer.
This is NOT a supercomputer. Apparently once we figure out how to do it the number crunching should be easy.
And I agree, a 52 cubic meter TL9 computer should be a Teraflop super computer. But the computer-3 is outclassed by a 1975 PDP-12 using Travellers own definitions of computer power.
Nurd-Boy, NASA in the early 70s bought time on the Rice University computer, an IBM 360, which had about the power of a 486 running Linux. And the Apollo on board computer was capable of navigating on its own if radio communication were lost. The reason why they did all the computing on the ground in "Apollo 13" was because the on-board computer was powered down.
Also, "all the other functions of a ships computer" is your fantasy, and I challenge you to find support in the Traveller rules. Remember a Computer 1, a vacuum tube eniac could do everything expected of a ships computer and jump. And if a computer is completely destroyed the other functions are not affected, so they are not controlled by the ship's computer.
TheColonel
SOC-9
Uncle Bob,
You are starting to convince me.
You are starting to convince me.
In my campaign, we have traditionally used what I would now describe as UBT-III (Uncle Bob Type III) comptuers.. slightly modified. Generally, we have been considering the computer tonnage itself to be electronic warfare/sensors/and battle statistics machines, and completely ignoring the Book 2 software rules. The rest of the machine is distributed around the ship here and there.
But then again, I started using TNE rules... which don't have software considerations. Robots (Book 8 IIRC) has guidelines of computing power at various tech levels. So does TNE.
It isn't a perfect solution, but it does let me keep the rules AND avoid the software / tonnage / what should a computer be able to do debate with my players. Pure fluff? Yep... but it works.
But then again, I started using TNE rules... which don't have software considerations. Robots (Book 8 IIRC) has guidelines of computing power at various tech levels. So does TNE.
It isn't a perfect solution, but it does let me keep the rules AND avoid the software / tonnage / what should a computer be able to do debate with my players. Pure fluff? Yep... but it works.
Father Fletch
SOC-12
Just a thought about computers and bridges in CT....I have to agree with earlier posts that the tonnage of a Computer from Mark 1-9 was also including holo tanks, terminals, display panels, wiring, coolant, etc what have you. In addition the bridge tonnage included sensors, antennae, wiring, seats, etc. IIRC the description of the stateroom says that usually only about half of the 4 tons was actually in the room itself. The rest was in common areas. I usually thought that to include the bridge and engineering and computer equipment as well. I think there was also usually 1 ton that needed to be dedicated to fire control per turret. The only thing that I thought needed to be the actual listed tonnage was the fuel tankage. YMMV, these were all approximations.
Also the S/C with its 20 ton bridge spoke to me of a HUGE sensor array, but then it breaks down with the 100 ton free trader, so whadda ya want? I was a liberal arts major!
Also the S/C with its 20 ton bridge spoke to me of a HUGE sensor array, but then it breaks down with the 100 ton free trader, so whadda ya want? I was a liberal arts major!
200 ton Free Trader, but yeah. The rules have a lot of ambiguity on how to translate tonnage into deckplans. This is probably a good thing, as it allows the designer to use a little imagination (or at least common sense). It can lead to absurdities, though.
IMHO the megatraveler and FFS rules added complexity and difficulty to the design process without leading to more realistic or even believable designs.
And there is nothing wrong with liberal arts degrees, I have a couple myself. (BS in History, MA in History)
The D.D. doesn't have to be a problen, either.
(One of my favorite Referees is now working for his ThD)
IMHO the megatraveler and FFS rules added complexity and difficulty to the design process without leading to more realistic or even believable designs.
And there is nothing wrong with liberal arts degrees, I have a couple myself. (BS in History, MA in History)
The D.D. doesn't have to be a problen, either.
(One of my favorite Referees is now working for his ThD)
Father Fletch
SOC-12
<Secret message to uncle bob...the M.Ed. and The DD are for my cover identity, Father Fletch...Signed the man behind the curtain>
first trav. ships DO NOT have a 'houston' to monitor their systems, Those huge control rooms you see on the news footage would have to be on board and automated, meaning alot of computing, either through one massive point or multiple subsystems that are networked to a core for coordination....AAAND........
second, take a standard fusion plant, there IS NO WAY to control one without a massive amount of computer power regulating reaction rate,temperatures, output, etc... that alone means having its own deticated system and massive computing power just to keep it stable, wich in turn has to coordinate with the jump drives computer to regulate power draw, that inturn talks to the nav computer to know how much power is needed for jump-x (unless in your TU a jump-3 is 3, no further, no less, period)that also talks to the life support system to make sure it doesn't loose power....if you think about it, all the components are pretty much computer driven, and those 'peices' need to talk to each other and balance...unless you'd like to do it all by hand?..you know manually...have an engineer stationed 24-7 at each component with the old sound-power-phone strapped around his neck (like in an old war movie) talking to each other?...and the coordination center for all these systems?..hmmm, lets see, is jojo the cybermonkey?...noooo, its the ships computer....
its not 'fantasy'. It's a realistic train of thought and reasonable...a ship isn't an office building, the devices onboard are not copy machines, they are complicated, sensitive needing the kind of control/monitoring only a deticated computer can provide. Then all those devices need to operate in balance to get a vessel to do something other than be a paperwieght all the while making sure the crew stays alive.....
that returns us to my main argument in comparing computers to 486's, ibm uptysquats, SCOPE, SCALE..people think to small and not realize what goes into making a ship work....
sheeeeeeeeeeeez.........
Originally posted by Nurd_boy:
First trav. ships DO NOT have a 'houston' to monitor their systems, Those huge control rooms you see on the news footage would have to be on board and automated, meaning alot of computing, either through one massive point or multiple subsystems that are networked to a core for coordination....AAAND........
My point was that the Houston contriol center was not needed for Apollo navigation. A hat-box sized computer (pre-integrated circuits) and a sextant could do that quite nicely, thank you. Houston Control was the equivalent of dozens of watchstanders staring at single dials. Few had any influence on the mission. That huge center had limited computer power as they were renting time on the Rice University computer there in Houston.
second, take a standard fusion plant, there IS NO WAY to control one without a massive amount of computer power regulating reaction rate,temperatures, output, etc... that alone means having its own deticated system and massive computing power just to keep it stable,
You are making a reasonable assumption about the fusion power plant which is not explicitly supported by cannon. The power plant may use a confined plasma, but if it does it uses local processors because it continue to function if the shps computer is destroyed.
wich in turn has to coordinate with the jump drives computer to regulate power draw, that inturn talks to the nav computer to know how much power is needed for jump-x (unless in your TU a jump-3 is 3, no further, no less, period)that also talks to the life support system to make sure it doesn't loose power....if you think about it, all the components are pretty much computer driven, and those 'peices' need to talk to each other and balance...unless you'd like to do it all by hand?..you know manually...have an engineer stationed 24-7 at each component with the old sound-power-phone strapped around his neck (like in an old war movie) talking to each other?...and the coordination center for all these systems?..hmmm, lets see, is jojo the cybermonkey?...noooo, its the ships computer....
Once again that does not require a central computer. Local processors can tell the power plant what is needed and the power plant's own processors will supply. You don't need a central unit to do that, and the fact that the power supply and life support continue to work when the computer is destoyed proves that the Ship's computer is not involved in these functions.
The its not 'fantasy'. It's a realistic train of thought and reasonable
It is a reasonable train of thought which is not fully supported by canon. As for comparing computer power, canon defines a simple, well understood computer task as taking one "space". All my comparisons are based on this fact in Book 2.
First trav. ships DO NOT have a 'houston' to monitor their systems, Those huge control rooms you see on the news footage would have to be on board and automated, meaning alot of computing, either through one massive point or multiple subsystems that are networked to a core for coordination....AAAND........
My point was that the Houston contriol center was not needed for Apollo navigation. A hat-box sized computer (pre-integrated circuits) and a sextant could do that quite nicely, thank you. Houston Control was the equivalent of dozens of watchstanders staring at single dials. Few had any influence on the mission. That huge center had limited computer power as they were renting time on the Rice University computer there in Houston.
second, take a standard fusion plant, there IS NO WAY to control one without a massive amount of computer power regulating reaction rate,temperatures, output, etc... that alone means having its own deticated system and massive computing power just to keep it stable,
You are making a reasonable assumption about the fusion power plant which is not explicitly supported by cannon. The power plant may use a confined plasma, but if it does it uses local processors because it continue to function if the shps computer is destroyed.
wich in turn has to coordinate with the jump drives computer to regulate power draw, that inturn talks to the nav computer to know how much power is needed for jump-x (unless in your TU a jump-3 is 3, no further, no less, period)that also talks to the life support system to make sure it doesn't loose power....if you think about it, all the components are pretty much computer driven, and those 'peices' need to talk to each other and balance...unless you'd like to do it all by hand?..you know manually...have an engineer stationed 24-7 at each component with the old sound-power-phone strapped around his neck (like in an old war movie) talking to each other?...and the coordination center for all these systems?..hmmm, lets see, is jojo the cybermonkey?...noooo, its the ships computer....
Once again that does not require a central computer. Local processors can tell the power plant what is needed and the power plant's own processors will supply. You don't need a central unit to do that, and the fact that the power supply and life support continue to work when the computer is destoyed proves that the Ship's computer is not involved in these functions.
The its not 'fantasy'. It's a realistic train of thought and reasonable
It is a reasonable train of thought which is not fully supported by canon. As for comparing computer power, canon defines a simple, well understood computer task as taking one "space". All my comparisons are based on this fact in Book 2.
At the risk of getting into necromancy I had a little brainwave about this a while ago.
It's better to think of a computer as a whole avionics package including sensors and control infrastructure. Perhaps controlling a jump might require a quantum computer - you can make up any schitck behind this that you want. The nature of quantum computers is such that they're quite large and clunky because they need a substantial cryogenic cooling unit and at least quad redundancy (including the cooling units) for aerospace usage.
Combine this with sensors and their associated antennae, redundant internal network looms within the ship, redundant control interfacing hardware, reserve batteries for a UPS (also quad redundant), milspec consoles and the other gubbins that go with such things - plus maintenance space to get at them - and you can make them up to being quite a substantial complex of hardware. The same thing can apply to bridges.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Nice bit on the quantum part.
I took this on in my IMTU thread, basically I explained the LBB2 computer pricing and performance as being extremely fault-tolerant and dreamy support levels, and dropping in prices in orders of magnitude but losing licensing for carrying passengers and ultimately freight, increasing instability under duress and bad/non-existent support for swapping in/out starship hardware.
So ya you can run your ship on a PC equivalent but you'll be running under market/illegal rates and find yourself without a working system at the worst possible times.
I took this on in my IMTU thread, basically I explained the LBB2 computer pricing and performance as being extremely fault-tolerant and dreamy support levels, and dropping in prices in orders of magnitude but losing licensing for carrying passengers and ultimately freight, increasing instability under duress and bad/non-existent support for swapping in/out starship hardware.
So ya you can run your ship on a PC equivalent but you'll be running under market/illegal rates and find yourself without a working system at the worst possible times.
Which opens up SDBs/monitors to the use of far less massive computers, granting them a further tactical advantage.
Or that semiconductance differs, so you need to use vacuum tubes.
Similar threads
