Computers are SOO big - V Clunky

[themink]

In one of my traveler games, there were big problems with a couple of players because they "knew" that computers would be ridiculusly prowerful by this era. When they found computer rooms on their deckplans they were aghast. When I forced them to make piloting rolls etc etc.

I used three main assumptions to allow them to relax into CT -
1) Moore's law fails in arround 2010 so transisters never break the 50 nm barrier and memory sticks never pass 1Gb
2) Every computer device has an OS internal to it as part of the production process. This means that all computer bits are very adaptable (ie you can plug some TL8 memory into your TL12 computer) - this OS is ubiquitous - we gave it a microsoft logo.
The OS of every device stops people copying things, requires human interaction for certain levels of "important" decisions etc - ie robots will clean a room - but can;t fire a gun.
3) People with computer skills know how to program "top level" languages. The skills required to write/build a computer from transisters up/ design chips etc are incredibly rare and there is so much comercial pressure, nobody is supplying a competing OS. That is players can write programs to do big picture stuff rather than the current "micro" problems - ie a player can write a program to drive a ground car allong a set route very easily and quickly (cause there is lots of internal support) and errors are likely to result in the cra getting lost or crashing rather than not moving at all.

How did other people handle the "computers should have solved this problem by now" issue?

PS This has a big effect on gene work - gene sequencing still takes a long time and explains the lack of extreme pantropy

 

[Vorlanth]

Well the never-ending contention about computer size and function won't ever be solved (though the proposal on freelance traveller is a good one - http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/rules/tss/tss1.htm.)

I handle Ships computers (and other systems to a lesser degree) with the following explanation (YMMV):

Traveller Ship Computer Notes

-All normal ships utilize a highly distributed, highly redundant, parrallel processing computer architechture for purposes of safety, reliability, and maintenance.

-Parrallel computer architechure allows robust, distributed processing and assures that damaged components can be safely routed around without bringing down the entire system. However, damage to computer systems does mean that processing occurs with decreasing resources which means longer calculation times or less accurate calculations. Each single node on the system is usually composed of a cluster of processing units with local data storage for redundancy. Finally, for complex tasks like jump calculations, weapons targeting, take-off, landing, and achieving orbit multiple nodes are assigned the task (usually an odd number like 3 or 5 depending on the systems size and current processing demands) and a solution is only passed on to the requesting source (user or computer) when the majority of nodes agree on a solution (i.e. 2 out of 3).

Depending on how robust and distributed the system is, individual nodes may vary in size from postage stamp (single specialized task unit like lights/temperature controls in a stateroom), matchbox size (more general dedicated task unit like monitoring and archiving patient vital signs or engine performance and status), paperback size (weak general node or standard dedicated node), shoebox size (standard general node or strong dedicated node), to storage box size (strong general node or superior dedicated node).

Additionally, there are usually 3 or more dedicated nodes located near key stations in the ship including avionics/sensors, pilot/maneuvar drive, astrogation/jump drive, engines/fuel, lifesupport, medical bay, and targeting/weapons. On systems where there is less need for protection from damage, a single central node acts as a hub to take user requests and manage processing priorities and assignments.

-Interface devices make up about 1/2 of the total volume of a computer installation. These included redundant display surfaces and input devices and well as direct access ports for data transfer.

-A portion of total system volume includes radation hardening, shock absorbtion, internal hardware diagnostics, and a basic level of redundancy in each node to avoid having nodes go out every time the ship has a tough atmospheric re-entry.

-A portion of volume is taken up by central data storage for long-term archival or low access data. This is usually a holographic medium for its high density, stability, and radiation resistance. However it does tend to be slightly slower in data retrieval than more volitile mediums.

-The remaining volume is taken up by the reams of highspeed fiber-optic and superconductive cable needed to allow the distributed systems to work together. In addition, routing interlinks form data transfer nexuses for re-distrubting bandwidth from heavily utilized routes to less clogged, more efficient routes.

A fair amount of this description is just general handwaving but it gives enough "crunchiness" to satisfy those with a technical bent and enough "fluff" for the GM to squirm room. Plus I think it addresses the advances computers have made from the vacuum-tube stage but doesn't turn them into magic boxes either where a shoebox sized machine can run a planet (and it keeps size requirements the same but more spread out throughput a ship's structure). Really, you're not limited to current computer achitechture or software, especially since Vilani tech underlies and informs most of the Imperium's advances - and they developed it seperate from earth using semi-functional Ancient tech as a model. So it very probably has superior characteristics in some way (memory density for instance) but inferior characteristics in other ways (highly arcane and ritualized programming languages for instance).

 

[Vargas]

Where do things like sensors fit in this scheme; are they included or not?

Great description by the way!

 

[PVernon]

Originally posted by Vargas:
Where do things like sensors fit in this scheme; are they included or not?

Great description by the way!

I would say they are part of the 20DTon bridge.

 

[lisagb]

By the way vorlanth ya link dont work.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Vargas:
Where do things like sensors fit in this scheme; are they included or not?

Great description by the way!

'
We use High Guard combat, and the computer mostly affects weapon targeting, so I just treat the "computer" tonnage as a sensor array.

The actual computers are just part of the bridge.

The Mink, for Traveller computers to work Moores law must have broken down no later than 1980.

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by lisagb:
By the way vorlanth ya link dont work.

That's because he typed .htm rather than .html. See
http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/rules/tss/tss1.html

I think you'll like the way the T20 rules handle computers. The processor core is only a fraction of the total. The rest of the traditional CT sized computer consists of sensors, communications equipment, and avionics. And T20 lets you bump up (or down) whichever part of that total system you like. Want a basic mod 1 computer but with long range sensors and commo? Can do.

 

[themink]

The Mink, for Traveller computers to work Moores law must have broken down no later than 1980.[/QB]

Nah - Server rooms are still very common. I don;t think I've ever worked for a company that didn't have a space at least the size of a CT mk1 computer.

Keep in mind that a starship computer has to have enough redundancy that it can go for 12 months without "any" down time. Drop a couple of decent sized raid arrays, enough actual servers that it can run a "tell me 7 times" to identify problem machines, enough access space to get at all the parts and enough spare capacity (all all senses of the word) that when something stops working you can get in and replace it - without any effect on the actual processing that the sucker's doing. Plus enough parts that you can keep replacing the bits that break.

I suppose nearly a third of my visualised computer room is "replacements" ready to go in as things fail.

I suppose part of my difficulty is trying to visualise ANY task that would soak up a big computer from 2020. I suppose bloatware will always keep pace with available resources. It's kind of sad if you look at it like that.

 

[trader jim]

hey all you A.I. computers - Admiral Trader Jim is recruiting and needs your help in this war..
his Motto twards you is "Letem think for them selves"....if you join up with us...well give you several paragraphs in a new t20 computer suppliment!!....well also give you SEVERAL systems
over in the NEW ERA section...they need allthe help they can get...thats ONLY after this war....all Trader Jim wants to do is present his case to you....lets INTERFACE!!!...ill be here for several more hours.....

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by The Mink:
Nah - Server rooms are still very common. I don;t think I've ever worked for a company that didn't have a space at least the size of a CT mk1 computer.

I work at a computer operations hub for an international corporation. The computer room I'm working in right now is about 45 dtons, with another 20 dtons in the switch room (as in telephone switching equipment) next door.

Lots of machines and lots of servers. Most of the HP and Sun machines are two to a cabinet, though there are some big ones occupying two cabinets each. There are half a dozen or so PCs in each of their server cabinets (about eight rows of four to six PC cabinets each), the big multi-processor, it-never-goes-down Tandem is three cabinets (one is all multi-cartridge tape drives), and so on. There are several more cabinets of disk-farms (tera-bytes of data in those) and many cabinets full of fiber-optic and coaxial switching equipment.

Every two PC cabinets share a rack mounted monitor and keyboard, the Tandem has it's own PC as an operator terminal, several of the Unix machines have their own monitors/keyboards, and there are thirty-four monitors and keyboards here on the bridge (I just counted them) as well as the big laser printer.

We have another data-center elsewhere that has _seven floors_ packed to the gills with servers and computers and tape drives and disc farms and so on.

No, single computers no longer take up entire floors or rooms. But the aggregate computer complexes of today take up more room than the old mainframes ever did. Only they do a heck of a lot more and they do it a lot faster.

 

[RandyT0001]

I don't see starships needing lots of servers to function. Two (stateroom/lounge) per passenger and four (stateroom/lounge/station/bridge) per crew would cover minimums. One server per robot aboard.

The computer has to run theses servers and compute permutations on orbital mechanics of star systems within the inputed jump parameter radius of the destination world. It is also built with the technology of it's introduction to facalitate repair by the crew.

Randy

 

[Uncle Bob]

Mink, Tanuki

There is a big difference between a ship's computer and a server farm. We have had a 1 space program defined as one capable of normal-space navigation, so a Compuer 1 is slightly less powrful than a commodore 64. That means the Ghz Athelon I have my feet on can do everything a 9 ton computer 7 can do. You want to build in redundacy, but it is still going to take up less than a 20" rack, and that is at TL8.

Now a King Richard might have the kind of system you describe to distribute information and entertainment to the passengers, but it will not be part of the ship's computer. It will also not be on any ship that does not have at least one dedicated computer tech.

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
[QB]Mink, Tanuki

There is a big difference between a ship's computer and a server farm. We have had a 1 space program defined as one capable of normal-space navigation, so a Compuer 1 is slightly less powrful than a commodore 64.

I tend to define a 1 space program as one capable of jump space navigation and not normal space navigation. This helps me avoid explainations of the perceived breakdown of computer advancements as portrayed in Traveller to real life advances. Nobody knows what is involved in jump physics IRL.

Jump 6 physics require the use of TL 15 computer to understand. Once undersoood a program can be written allowing a TL 12 computer to navigate into jumpspace properly.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Book 2

 

[Nurd_boy]

did EVERYONE forget APOLLO? the computer used in that craft took them to the moon....or the systems onboard mercury, or gemeni...hell, the mars rover was off the shelf for the most part...stop comparing to C64's and compare to what we actually WAS used...and even then, houston did most of the control (in traveller, houston is all onboard, IN THE COMPUTER !...)

and don't forget, a ships computer isn't an office network,
***people are secondary consideration to ships operation***,
the computer runs life support, monitors power plants, drive temps/conditions, monitors safety features, controls ALL the do-hickies and thingies a person NEVER knows about (until they STOP WORKING !) and the MILES of wire, conduit, etc... would make your head spin,(just ask anyone that's severed in the u.s.navy about that!!), then add in crew comforts like the library, personal/work stations in the cabins and ship sections (even an engineering computer isn't stand alone, it's tied to the ships main computer)...

no offense, but most of you don't seem to picture how massive an undertaking it is to enclose (in comfort/habitability) a human in the most hostile enviroment known (space) and allow that person to travel FTL and run a livelihood all in relative safety...EVERYTHING HAS TO BE COORDINATED BY COMPUTER, and that computer has to be reliable and resistant to radiation (hint: the van allen belt ring any bells?), cold, gravity, shock, heat...

need I go on? sheez

Computers are massive FOR A REASON.

...then the software, a nav 1 program isn't a video game, it would use real-world information fron sensors, tousands of inputs from relavant ships systems (almost all hidden/invisable to the navagator)to create the program...it would be HUGE, and even for a realtive weak computer (by traveller standards) to run isn't a PC (or MAC)....

ok, I vented...you may flame away

 

[TheColonel]

I would agree about starship navagation. The database would have to be huge. Someform of interpolation of the location of every near body (star,planet,asteroid, etc.) for every starsystem in range of the ship would be necessary. This database and interpolation would be even larger with every increase in jump #. Since there is really no fixed point in space, the computer would have to continuely process and update the locations of these objects. That process would take alot of computing power. Using today's model, it would need a super computer set up.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The Apollo nav computer was mentioned. I remember it. It was a TL6 computer, cubed 1/10 kiloliter (less than 0.01 dton). IIRC it had 16K memory, and the OS was hardwired. I suggested the commodore 64 as a generous alternative capable of handling more variables and that ya'll might be familiar with.

I would of thought that jump travel was more complex myself, but Book 2 suggests it takes roughly equivalent space in the computer as normal space maneuvering.

And there is no suggestion that engineering or LSS is routed through the ships computer. Damage to the computer affects weapon targeting and, in extremis, the ability to jump, but people don't suffocate or get vaporized.

Besides it would be unecessary and really daft to run all those systems through one core like a 1960s computer center.

This forum is called "In My Traveller Universe", so for your universe you have three options,

Accept the rules as written and say, "Those are the Rules. It ain't realistic, but get over it."

Come up with some BS to make the rules sound reasonable. Even when proposed by IT professionals these are unconvincing and unsatisfying.

You can treat the "computer" as an agglomeration of avionics, only some of which is compter. I do this and I think T20 does something similar.

Oh, a forth option would be to rewrite the starship design rules. I don't recommend this one.

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
[QB]
I would of thought that jump travel was more complex myself, but Book 2 suggests it takes roughly equivalent space in the computer as normal space maneuvering.<

Would you please give me a page number where Book 2 suggests this?

>And there is no suggestion that engineering or LSS is routed through the ships computer. Damage to the computer affects weapon targeting and, in extremis, the ability to jump, but people don't suffocate or get vaporized.

Besides it would be unecessary and really daft to run all those systems through one core like a 1960s computer center.

This forum is called "In My Traveller Universe", so for your universe you have three options,

Accept the rules as written and say, "Those are the Rules. It ain't realistic, but get over it."

Come up with some BS to make the rules sound reasonable. Even when proposed by IT professionals these are unconvincing and unsatisfying.<

I'm not an IT professional but more into CT. I try to make computing power fit into Traveller and not Traveller into RL computing power. I do this by defining a 1 space program to be derived formula [from more advanced understanding of jump physics] capable of jump 1. This jump physics [Jump 1] was discovered by humans using a Model 3 [TL 9, and we aren't there yet] computer. Once understood by humans, programs could then be written, using 1 space, that would allow even a vacuum tube, TL 5 Model 1 to perform these equations and plot a jump.

Why have a clunky vacuum tube beast when this sleek IC desktop can do it? Ease of repair in the field. When your TL 9, Model 1 computer, ship crashs lands on that primitive TL 5 world computer repair components can usually be accquired from locals. At least base stock can be had and components fabricated by the crew but this takes more time.

>You can treat the "computer" as an agglomeration of avionics, only some of which is compter. I do this and I think T20 does something similar.<

I consider avionics to be part of the bridge allocation.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by RandyT0001:

Would you please give me a page number where Book 2 suggests this?

Page 41. A Maneuver program takes one "space". Jump 1 and Navigate each take 1 space.

Obviously, two is not one but I will defend it as "roughly equivalent".

The Generate program to produce a jump flight plan only takes one space. So much for a terabyte database and a supercomputer.

I'm not an IT professional but more into CT. I try to make computing power fit into Traveller and not Traveller into RL computing power. I do this by defining a 1 space program to be derived formula [from more advanced understanding of jump physics] capable of jump 1. This jump physics [Jump 1] was discovered by humans using a Model 3 [TL 9, and we aren't there yet] computer. Once understood by humans, programs could then be written, using 1 space, that would allow even a vacuum tube, TL 5 Model 1 to perform these equations and plot a jump.

I believe this is my first option, "It may not make sense but these are the rules."

...When your TL 9, Model 1 computer, ship crashs lands on that primitive TL 5 world computer repair components can usually be accquired from locals. At least base stock can be had and components fabricated by the crew but this takes more time.

I have no objection to a TL 5 vacuum tube Model 1 with 2/4 "spaces" in a ton. But the number of "spaces"/ton to run programs goes down at higher TL until TL B and even at TL D it only handles 2.2/5.5 "spaces" per ton. BTW, my best guess is that the 8088 XT desktop I bought in 1984 had about 3/25 spaces, although the DOS OS took up 1 and could only run one program at a time. My Athelon with Win2k has about 1000/1,000,000 spaces with the OS in about 300 and capable of running 50+ programs in the space remaining. I find this discepancy distracting, and rather than re-write the computer rules, I chose to ignore them. I grant, YMMV.

I consider avionics to be part of the bridge allocation.

That is how it is written, and is certainly a valid way to run.

 

[Nurd_boy]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
The Apollo nav computer was mentioned. I remember it. It was a TL6 computer, cubed 1/10 kiloliter (less than 0.01 dton). IIRC it had 16K memory, and the OS was hardwired. I suggested the commodore 64 as a generous alternative capable of handling more variables and that ya'll might be familiar with.

I would of thought that jump travel was more complex myself, but Book 2 suggests it takes roughly equivalent space in the computer as normal space maneuvering.

And there is no suggestion that engineering or LSS is routed through the ships computer. Damage to the computer affects weapon targeting and, in extremis, the ability to jump, but people don't suffocate or get vaporized.

Besides it would be unecessary and really daft to run all those systems through one core like a 1960s computer center.

This forum is called "In My Traveller Universe", so for your universe you have three options,

Accept the rules as written and say, "Those are the Rules. It ain't realistic, but get over it."

Come up with some BS to make the rules sound reasonable. Even when proposed by IT professionals these are unconvincing and unsatisfying.

You can treat the "computer" as an agglomeration of avionics, only some of which is compter. I do this and I think T20 does something similar.

Oh, a forth option would be to rewrite the starship design rules. I don't recommend this one.

you still seem to be missing the shear scope of whats needed to run a starship...your looking at just the end-user interface...its like looking at a human (even if he has an iq of 85) and seeing only the speaking, cognitive abilities and missing the fact that that 'low level' brain is still coordinating mussle, autonomic nerves for heat beat, respiration, body temp and the millions of other things that go on un-noticed.

a basic ship computer may give limited user ability upfront, but there is more to it than that...

besides, like i said, houston did most of the ships monitoring for apollo, the onboard system took care of the immediate control, it would have nowhere near the power to do everything like the comptuter of an FTL ship would need to....

increase the scope your dealing with !!