Frieght charges IMTU

[Proneutron]

Back to the OP, it can be simpler.

Yours way is MORE complex than my one dimensional chart, not simpler.

 

[Proneutron]

A character with good computer skills should be able to easily reverse-engineer the generate algorithms and write new interface code.

You are assuming that thousands of years from now you can view the code and it doesn't come in encrypted H/W computing modules you cannot access... Also, if it is open source then you cannot charge for it...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Your way is MORE complex than my one dimensional chart, not simpler.

But that's the problem -- if the intent is to provide pricing even vaguely resembling economic constraints, you're going to end up with something complex. The economic constraints (based on "physics", i.e. the ship design rules) are inherently complex.

This isn't to say that simpler approximations aren't possible, or might even provide for a playable environment without being wildly over-simplified.

 

[Proneutron]

But that's the problem -- if the intent is to provide pricing even vaguely resembling economic constraints,

It's based on ship cost for a ship that would deliver cargo in one jump that many parsecs. Or so the originator stated. In Traveller you stay in space for a ~1 week per jump. Since that chart is per Jump it doesn't require the additional dimension variable of TIME.

 

[coliver988]

A character with good computer skills should be able to easily reverse-engineer the generate algorithms and write new interface code. This would probably violate various copyright or patent standards. A programmer could use the reverse engineered code as a test engine to certify the output of new code. While this could be legally dicey it wouldn't be easy to prove once the testing is complete and the questionable code is disposed.


A group of characters with high computer skills, PhDs in astrogation, and related fields should be able to make an open source generate pgm. A group of independent starship owners could form a risk retention group and certify the open source version after suitable testing. Membership in the risk group for a tenth the cost of Generate would gain access to the code.

there was another discussion on this somewhere here. just beware the hidden bug when writing your own software - there is always that chance.

(tried to do a search but could not find that thread)

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's based on ship cost for a ship that would deliver cargo in one jump that many parsecs. Or so the originator stated. In Traveller you stay in space for a ~1 week per jump. Since that chart is per Jump it doesn't require the additional dimension variable of TIME.

Fair enough, but that's not entirely realistic economically. The base rate should be set by the least expensive available means of getting cargo from X to Y, with a time-sensitivity premium on some portion of the available cargo. That is, most of the available cargo will pay the cheapest rate and doesn't care how long it might take. Meanwhile, a small portion of the available cargo will pay whatever it takes to get there in one week if they can.*

As an example, the rate to 5 parsecs would probably be based on the costs of a Jump-3 ship doing two jumps (J3, then J2) or a Jump-2 ship doing three jumps (J2, J2, J1). Some cargoes would pay extra to do it in one week, but the cost differential -- especially when available tech doesn't let you build J-5 under High Guard rules and you have to resort to LBB2 -- is enormous.


*This would call for a change to the cargo rules. Instead of declaring a destination and rolling to see how much cargo is going there, you'd roll cargo for all destinations within 6 (or so) parsecs and then break each world's cargo down into the normal and time-sensitive categories.

 

[Proneutron]

That is, most of the available cargo will pay the cheapest rate and doesn't care how long it might take. Meanwhile, a small portion of the available cargo will pay whatever it takes to get there in one week if they can.*


As an example, the rate to 5 parsecs would probably be based on the costs of a Jump-3 ship doing two jumps (J3, then J2) or a Jump-2 ship doing three jumps (J2, J2, J1). Some cargoes would pay extra to do it in one week,

Multiple jumps for cargo is probably NOT happening much UNLESS the hold is FULL of cargo all going to the exact same place. I don't need to detail why that is to anyone who has designed and costed Trav ships. Therefore, the cheapest for multi parsec cargo is likely to also be the fastest ship rather than a ship having to do multiple jumps to get there.

 

[coliver988]

...<snip>

*This would call for a change to the cargo rules. Instead of declaring a destination and rolling to see how much cargo is going there, you'd roll cargo for all destinations within 6 (or so) parsecs and then break each world's cargo down into the normal and time-sensitive categories.

back when I was working on my trade program, that's what I did, though only out to the ship's jump range. Think I was using the T5 rules for that part of things. You had a list of cargos (rolled once per week) for all destinations in reach. Same for passengers.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, you could use the system that airlines had to fill passenger seats, costs varying as to date booked and availability of seats till point of departure.

Overbooking could be solved by attaching extra cargo on external mounts.

Or passengers.

 

[Proneutron]

back when I was working on my trade program, that's what I did, though only out to the ship's jump range. Think I was using the T5 rules for that part of things. You had a list of cargos (rolled once per week) for all destinations in reach. Same for passengers.

We did the same thing early on. I did it when the PCs arrived at the port. But all of what I'm talking about is really for non major worlds. Small freighters don't bother with major export or import worlds

 

[whartung]

You are assuming that thousands of years from now you can view the code and it doesn't come in encrypted H/W computing modules you cannot access...

Like all of those folks that have been reverse engineering data and duplicating interfaces for the past 50 years?

Also, if it is open source then you cannot charge for it...

That's why Canoncial (makers of Ubuntu) is a $110M/yr company.

My company makes several $M a year licensing and supporting our OSS software. And it's been forked, renamed, embedded, and used outside of our purview all over the world.

 

[Proneutron]

Like all of those folks that have been reverse engineering data and duplicating interfaces for the past 50 years?

Irrelevant. 50 years is not 5,000 years. o:

That's why Canoncial (makers of Ubuntu) is a $110M/yr company.

AGAIN, irrelevant. I said they don't charge for the s/w. And Canonical doesn't charge for Ubuntu. :coffeesip:

 

[coliver988]

so, just as a thought experiment: would your character be will to risk their lives (and a multi-million credit ship) on non-certified software that developers recreated from the reverse-engineering?

per the rules in book 2: Fatal Flaws: Any home written program may have a fatal flaw concealed within. This bug may not appear until the program is really needed. The referee should note the potential for a fatal flaw and roll as required (suggested roll: 11+ for the bug to appear).

I would go with the open source software in this case being the same as a home written piece of software. A 5.5% probability (assuming I read the table correctly) each time you jump. Eventually it will catch up with you.

and, though the rules never say anything about it, there have been some discussions on insurance for ships. If YTU has insurance, what sort of premium would homebrew cost? and another one on rules and regulations with software: would your ship even be permitted to have non-official software, assuming it is checked for inspections or anything?

There are considerations of this beyond the mere technical aspects

edit: the 5.5% is the chance of rolling an 11, with a 2.77% of a 12, so 8% or so. dang - need to go back to the BBB as chapter 1 has ALL the odds! anyway, I am certain I will be corrected shortly

 

[Proneutron]

I would go with the open source software in this case being the same as a home written piece of software. A 5.5% probability (assuming I read the table correctly) each time you jump. Eventually it will catch up with you.

I don't know. What has more errors, MS Office or LibreOffice? What is more Secure, Windows or Linux?

 

[Condottiere]

Paying for software support seems kinda pointless.

By the time it's necessary, it might not be accessible.

Unless it's Tesla, where you could unlock capabilities by pointing your credit card towards the computer.

 

[coliver988]

I don't know. What has more errors, MS Office or LibreOffice? What is more Secure, Windows or Linux?

and there leads something similar to the banned canon wars....

depends on use case and a few things outside the realm of this question. And not going down that dark route.

but for the game in question, that rule in book 2 stands regardless of current software, for the future software we are talking about. So for that case, less secure by the rules.

 

[Proneutron]

but for the game in question, that rule in book 2 stands regardless of current software, for the future software we are talking about. So for that case, less secure by the rules.

I understand what you are saying but, this was written before Marc knew about OSS. So I don't think that rule would exist if he wrote Traveller today. Just as Jump "tapes" are not the mag tapes of my mini-computer days but some thumbnail sized atomic crystal lattice device.

 

[coliver988]

I understand what you are saying but, this was written before Marc knew about OSS. So I don't think that rule would exist if he wrote Traveller today. Just as Jump "tapes" are not the mag tapes of my mini-computer days but some thumbnail sized atomic crystal lattice device.

I shall respectfully disagree. The beauty of games: you can play it how you like.

And there is another interesting discussion on jump tapes and that it may just be the vernacular, not an actual tape. I still blow on the connector for my jump tapes as they seem to work better that way

 

[Proneutron]

I still blow on the connector for my jump tapes as they seem to work better that way

 

[kilemall]

In CT I skinned this cat a different way.


Cr1000 per parsec, same payment whether J-1 1 parsec or J-6 6 parsecs.

But you roll the number of available cargo lots and passengers x the jump number the ship will be using.

Target system is J-3, you roll 3x as many lots/passengers.


So to move more tonnage/passengers per ship and run bigger ships with full holds, you need to be making long jumps.

This gives a volume/full value to help offset that lesser tonnage available due to jump fuel and greater engineering capital up front. It also models the greater desirability of speed to destination, whether passenger or goods.

Ships designed for long jumps are going to tend to be bigger, run on trade routes between major planets, and stay away from small colonies.

They will also tend to be operated by either major corps that don't incur mortgage financing and are interested in moving their products faster with less shrinkage, subsidized liners, or up and coming shipping companies looking to break into the bigtime with lucrative guaranteed contracts.


Consider the effect on just the A-2 Fast Trader- 2x as many passengers so virtually full and virtually all High Passage, and a full cargo bay virtually every time out.

Saving money on the life support and crewing cost per trip helps.


This also explains why the Free Trader and Fat Trader J-1s still exist, they fill in all those JumpMain little hops the big boys literally would lose money on with holds and staterooms designed for a lot more demand.



Finally, don't neglect the Cr5000 mail/parcel run. 2x-6x the number of tons of that kind of run can really make a difference to the bottom line.