How many control panels is too many?

[agorski]

ACS ships require a control panel for every "mechanism" and some specific cases are given in the rules. For example, Life Support. This makes sense and one can assume this might also control floor grav plates.

But what about anti-hijacking controls? Accesses (air locks) can be assumed to be remotely locked and would require a panel.

Interior bulkhead doors aren't defined at all but iris valves should be remotely lockable. I guess you can assume that each compartment, crew accommodation, and passenger accommodation includes bulkhead doors as needed. Should each of these have a separate control panel?

This yields a ton of control panels, even on smaller ships. But it makes sense that the Bridge (a compartment) should have a control panel for access.

Would you create all these control panels for one of your designs?

 

[jcrocker]

Would you create all these control panels for one of your designs?

No.

I haven't reviewed the T5 rules in detail, but face it, at some point any crew would suffer from information overload. Assuming the crew can cycle through control screen options would save several square meters of needed panels. That was a design option in MegaTraveller, what sort of control panel input you wanted, and the reconfigurable ones saved tons of space.

If you want to have a separate 'blast door control room' for your ship, go for it. I'd suggest that instead you make use of the two control stations that every bridge seems to have, and have the pilot fly the ship from one and someone uses the other station to bring up the 'door control' panel and the antihijack program. Maybe it's CTRL+ALT+H for hijack.

 

[Reban]

No.

"Mechanisms" are the big systems like Jump Drives and PPlants, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think its one control panel per 30 dtons of mechanism?

Each control panel is then assigned to a Console which is the main interface for actually driving the ship.

Control Panels are local controls and interfaces. Don't think of them as the button you push to open the airlock, or the keypad that deactivates the security system.

Think of them as the local, mechanism specific, interface that the technicians and engineers consult and access to check the read-outs and settings as they "do their rounds" while on watch, or the interface they use to effect repairs or over-rides when needed.

For day to day running and interaction though with a mechanism its the Console in the control room or bridge that is the important one to worry about.

 

[robject]

No.

Control panels, to me, are simply inherent to mechanisms and components. Control Consoles, on the other hand, are likely to be where you expect them -- i.e. near a crew position.

 

[Major B]

ACS ships require a control panel for every "mechanism" and some specific cases are given in the rules. For example, Life Support. This makes sense and one can assume this might also control floor grav plates.

But what about anti-hijacking controls? Accesses (air locks) can be assumed to be remotely locked and would require a panel.

Interior bulkhead doors aren't defined at all but iris valves should be remotely lockable. I guess you can assume that each compartment, crew accommodation, and passenger accommodation includes bulkhead doors as needed. Should each of these have a separate control panel?

This yields a ton of control panels, even on smaller ships. But it makes sense that the Bridge (a compartment) should have a control panel for access.

Would you create all these control panels for one of your designs?

In some recent designs I have included more control panels than the T5.09 ACS rules require but not quite as many as you have laid out here.

Here are a few examples:
1. Each airlock has a control panel monitored from a security console but not all the interior doors.
2. Jump plates have one control panel per ten jump plates that are monitored both by the astrogator's console and the engineer console governing the jump drive.
3. Life Support has a control panel and if the ship has both standard and long-term then each has one. The steward's console monitors them on the small ships I am working on now. On larger ships with larger life support systems there would be more control panels (maybe 1 per 35 tons as used for drives) and at some point there may be a need for a life support console but I'm not sure what size ship might warrant that.
4. A hull does not require control panels but since a lifting body hull includes the +1 agility bonus for fins, the +1 acceleration bonus for wings (in atmosphere), and an agility bonus in atmosphere I think there must be control requirements for the pilot so I add in a control panel for each 100 tons of hull (minimum 1 for craft smaller than 100 tons) and map them to the pilot console. Landing legs and other add-ons to the hull need panels too.

I have assumed that other systems would be controlled by the consoles I've installed, like the security console controlling floor gravity and anti-hijack systems, bulkhead hatch locks, and security cameras, but I don't list them on a design worksheet.

I've also wondered how many control panels would be too many for a console to handle. It isn't specified but there is an implied limit in the C+S+K available for the console to spread out among tasks and the number of functions the computer governing the console can handle (measured in cells). My best answer is the computer and console help by simplifying controls and providing smart informational displays on the HUD.

Here are a couple of examples that outline my somewhat conflicted thinking:
1. The pilot's console can have a bunch of panels routed to it but unless the ship is in atmosphere or docking the pilot really only controls attitude and thrust. His display shows him what he needs to know and he can change the display to his liking. Most functions are controlled with a joystick or steering column with the computer and console translating the pilots desire into commands to the control surfaces, attitude thrusters, and M-Drive.
2. The sensor operator can overlay the feeds from many sensors into a combined situational display showing everything nearby. He may only be able to give specific commands to one sensor at a time, such as: a jump flash was detected in this direction so realign the neutrino detector antenna over there to see what kind of drive emissions it can pick up. The neutrino detector will still continue feeding his display if he then decides to point the EMS that way to try to determine a speed and course vector for the new contact. And the EMS stays on target refining it's reading while he then redirects the grav sensor to see what kind of drive they're looking at. The point in which you will need additional consoles in this case is not determined by the number of control panels but the number of directions you want to be paying attention to - like on a bigger ship that needs to target multiple enemies at one while the ortillery FDC sensop is also tracking surface targets and the admiral's staff runs multiple comm stations to communicate between ships from the flag bridge.

So I think that a high number of control panels per console is not in itself a bad thing. Just keep in mind that the sophont in the station or the computer controlling it can only focus on a finite number at a time, the console can help by displaying things in a smart way and translating simple commands into complex instructions, and each console should be a focal point for one problem set for one leader.

I hope all that rambling helped. Let me know if anything isn't clear.

Mike

 

[Epee]

Control panels are "dumb", and task specific. Consoles are "smart", flexible as far as purpose, and can, at least, monitor control panels.

Modern "smart" appliances are "control panels", the PC or phone you use to remotely monitor and/or control them are consoles.

 

[kilemall]

The terminology reminds me of mainframes.

Terminals would be what we would think of nowadays as the application UI/front end, limited by what security rights the user logging in has been granted.

They can also be Terminal ID thus effectively location limited, so the terminal in the lounge literally can't shut down the maneuver drives, but perhaps could be set to allow automatic Evade-type programs to load while the crew scrambles.

Consoles would be the system command terminals, able to watch relevant duty actions, grant rights, confirm actions or override/deny actions.

The captain would presumably have master console rights, and if he had the system set up this way take over any dumb terminal and make it the master console.

 

[Timerover51]

I find that I can keep track of multiple windows on one computer screen. My wife, while at work, has to deal with two screens, and does not like the set up at all. I would say that a person can effectively manage one screen, and somewhat manage two screens, but not at the peak of efficiency. Realistically, that probably would be individual-dependent, with some managing more than one screen capably and some capably of one screen or panel only. I would say that if managing more than 2 control panels, there should be a negative modifier for spotting trouble in sufficient time to do something about it to keep the problem minor.

 

[Condottiere]

Large screen, high resolution, touch sensitive, and possibly three dimensional holographic.

That's a lot of windows that could be open, or coralled into separate environments.

And tabbed.

 

[Epee]

Likewise a single, large touchscreen (or equivalent) could feature the widest over-all view of systems; say, jump, maneuver, powerplant, life support, navigation, weapons, communications, sensors, and access. Touching any icon/graphic opens into a window with more detail regarding that system right down to control panel level.

 

[coliver988]

Likewise a single, large touchscreen (or equivalent) could feature the widest over-all view of systems; say, jump, maneuver, powerplant, life support, navigation, weapons, communications, sensors, and access. Touching any icon/graphic opens into a window with more detail regarding that system right down to control panel level.

I see those as being like Star Trek system displays that are on the back wall or in engineering. From the technical manuals from TNG on, all consoles are user configurable and change to match the current functions required.