Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
If technology reaches a point where it is indistinguishable from magic, then call it what it is, i.e. Magic. At that point, Traveller becomes just a more advanced form of Dungeons and Dragons.
Maker Technology
- Thread starter Ulsyus
- Start date
If technology reaches a point where it is indistinguishable from magic, then call it what it is, i.e. Magic. At that point, Traveller becomes just a more advanced form of Dungeons and Dragons.
I still don't understand how that observation is apropos to this thread. You are being a bit too elliptical for simple thinking me.
Are jump drives and gravitics magic?
Do we have to assume they are built with MOS FETs or else they are magic?
Wouldn't building a a jump drive or gravitics with MOS FETs be magic?!?
Are jump drives and gravitics magic?
Do we have to assume they are built with MOS FETs or else they are magic?
Wouldn't building a a jump drive or gravitics with MOS FETs be magic?!?
T5 gives guidance on the point at which technology becomes indishguishable from magic:
From TL0 to TL21 the progression curve is smooth and we can imagine the rate of improvement because each advance is based on the previous advances. Beyond TL21 the rate of increase approaches singularity and the leaps in technology enable one to do absolutely anything...
And a quick reminder here that Maker technology seems to have a base tech level of TL11.
From TL0 to TL21 the progression curve is smooth and we can imagine the rate of improvement because each advance is based on the previous advances. Beyond TL21 the rate of increase approaches singularity and the leaps in technology enable one to do absolutely anything...
And a quick reminder here that Maker technology seems to have a base tech level of TL11.
Thanks Vegas, old-timers moment there.
That's what I was thinking of when I asked the question.
I suppose that when Supp 3 was written a few decades ago, TL-G was considered pretty amazing given that it was beyond what was clearly defined in the rules and the setting. With all the work that's gone into T5, TL-G is now pretty high, but conceptually not outside what can be visualised.
That's what I was thinking of when I asked the question.
I suppose that when Supp 3 was written a few decades ago, TL-G was considered pretty amazing given that it was beyond what was clearly defined in the rules and the setting. With all the work that's gone into T5, TL-G is now pretty high, but conceptually not outside what can be visualised.
Actually the passage in Supp.3 makes it clear that the perception of what is magic is a local or relative phenomenon:
Darrian has technology that is a magnitude greater than anything else encountered in the area, so to everyone it seems fantastic but is still recognized as technological in nature.
I can understand how some readers just can't wrap their head around Maker technology because it seems like magical fairy wish granting boxes that pop out anything that a player might want.
However if you extrapolate a TL11 Maker from the kind of rapid prototyping we have today it becomes just advanced technology with limitations and drawbacks that should allow a Referee to balance the game.
this should attract swarms of researchers and hackers and outright pirates attempting to comprehend and/or copy and/or thieve the capability. yet the darrians do not seem to figure prominently (or at all) in most traveller adventures. this setting feature appears completely untapped.
Thermodynamics (which holds up very well) sets a hard limit on just how FAST that maker can make things.
was watching TMRO on you tube, and the interview this week was of a guy doing engines by additive manufacturing.
His one comment is that it's slow, and there's very little that can be done to speed it up - the cool-off time is the major factor in per layer. He strongly expects to get larger, and more precise, but not faster, additive.
Oh, and the guy interviewed? He builds rocket engines on a DoD contract...
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Could be the rules change when you are using a combination of gravitics and nuclear damping to make/shape your part, that having multiple smaller parts makes parallel building speeds things up, and having base materials like Iridium may also help.
Speaking of which, wondering if Iridium's properties could help with electronic limits.
Of course they'd help! Until there's some further canonical guidance on production volumes and times though, it's likely going to be your call for YTU on this though.
If someone has the technology to manage fusion (or better) reactions and manipulate gravity, the tech to managed the bleeding of heat from a structure likely also exists. Manipulation of gravity is possible at TL9, practical fusion kicks in at TL10, and Magnetics (?) is listed at TL11. Given Reban's points about them being available at TL11, you may decide to have faster production kick in at TL11, which could explain why people may want to purchase a TL14 model over an earlier version.
I'm toying with using Object Size equal the number of days (+/- Flux) a Maker takes to build something.
But its a bit too arbitrary because I think complexity should affect it too.
Some examples
A coin sized object is Size 1 so it takes 24 hours +/-5 hours
To me this seems reasonable.
A vehicle is generally Size 6 so it takes 6 days +/-5 days
This seems a bit fast, although maybe not in game terms where the players place an order and the Maker says come back in a week, a week is a long time in a Traveller game. As long as the Ref says a tricycle is reasonably made in a day but thats not reasonable for a tank it'd be okay, but the Ref needs to pay attention to whats being made.
Size 7 equates to ~75m or building size. so 2 to 12 days.
Thats seems okay for a simple structure but for something more complex I'm not sure.
It needs to be reasonable but simple. Its a pity ThingMaker doesn't include build time.
But its a bit too arbitrary because I think complexity should affect it too.
Some examples
A coin sized object is Size 1 so it takes 24 hours +/-5 hours
To me this seems reasonable.
A vehicle is generally Size 6 so it takes 6 days +/-5 days
This seems a bit fast, although maybe not in game terms where the players place an order and the Maker says come back in a week, a week is a long time in a Traveller game. As long as the Ref says a tricycle is reasonably made in a day but thats not reasonable for a tank it'd be okay, but the Ref needs to pay attention to whats being made.
Size 7 equates to ~75m or building size. so 2 to 12 days.
Thats seems okay for a simple structure but for something more complex I'm not sure.
It needs to be reasonable but simple. Its a pity ThingMaker doesn't include build time.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Rather then huge rules overhead, that's why I let the credit cost of the thing dictate complexity.
A FGMP is 100-1000x more complex then an ACR, let that be your guide.
Complexity (within the scope of singular part) isn't much of a time factor. Currently, the primary issue is simply volume. The more material you have to sinter &/or weld to make the part, the longer it takes. Multiple parallel lasers can shorten it (divide by the number, with a reasonable limit by part size), but the issue is one of every weld needs to cool sufficiently before the next layer can be added to be sintered, and you can't have multiple lasers working on a small part, but you can make multiple small parts of volume X in about the same time as one part of volume X in the same bed.
The typical process is:
- put a layer of material down in pellet or proto-liquid.
- use a laser to sinter or weld solids, or to polymerize the liquid
- repeat
- Trace the outline for this level in hot material
- Move the bed or head for the next level
- Repeat
Certain ones use ink/glue mixes with white powders - these are mostly for prototyping, not production, but are also fine for mold making in many cases, provided you're casting by making the mold from a positive print. They make pretty doll-houses and architectural color mockups...
The standard additive/subtractive system for chip making is:
- Add layer of work material
- Add photoreactive layer
- expose photoreactive layer
- remove either exposed or unexposed reactively †
- etch the now exposed portions of the work material
- Remove remaining photoreactive
- repeat with additional materials in layers
A single layer of build can be as many as 5 or 6 etchings of different materials. (typical currently is 3 IIRC for most chips; some can be semiconductor, conductor, non-conductor for capacitance, and diode material, some have multiple doped semiconductors, and 2 or more non-conductors.)
This process, however, can be applied to make vacuum tubes, too.
I like this approach. We know the cost of equipment, and Makers are some chrome telling how they might be built, but the existence of Makers can't contradict the known costs, it has to be consistent with them.
Original_Carl
SOC-12
I whole-heartedly agree. Why throw away a perfectly good price list? That why in my last campaign, makers ran on Imperial Credits. I made the credits out of a super-material that was available only on the Capital (which is also why it was the capital).
Imperial credits served two purposes: cash and raw material for makers.
I did say that was a fault in my proposal. Using the Size of an object is quick and easy way to figure out how long a build should take. Primarily it helps the Referee tell the Player "okay your object will take this many days".
Say you want to "make" a Size 7 tower block thirty floors high (this is actually the example used on the size benchmarks table).
As a Ref I'd say that it will take the maximum 12 days, assuming of course you have a gigantic Maker capable of building it in one go. This is a major point. In my previous rule suggestions in this thread i said a maker can produce an object half the Maker's volume. So in this case you'd need a maker twice the volume of our small skyscraper.
How about with "make" the tower in two story sections that are Size 6 in a Maker of the kind that usually builds Size 6 vehicles. We need to build fifteen modules that each take (Size 6= 6 +/-5) 1 to 11 days. So the whole project takes 15 to 165 days plus reasonable construction or assembly time and a small construction crew or robot cranes.
And at the end of that process what you get is an unfurnished shell, thats plumbed, wired and glazed but not furnished or ready to walk into and use.
I'm actually surprised that this works out reasonably. I'm sure we could come up with examples of large structure (smallcraft jump to mind) that could still be built in unreasonable times using Size = Days, but I'd expect the Ref to step in and rule it takes longer.
I am trying to keep it simple. Size = Days +/- Flux isn't a huge rules overhead in my opinion.
Lets have a look at how your suggestion for adding complexity might work.
Say an ACR Cr1500 and a PGMP is Cr10,000 so roughly x10 more complex. Say they're both around Size 4, so the ACR take 4 days and the PGMP takes 40 days?
Doesn't really hit the spot for me I think, but you might be pointing me in the right direction.
